africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2025] ZMCA 94Zambia

Skyview Hotel (Chingola) Limited and Anor v Klapton Reinsurance Limited and 3 Ors (CAZ/08/450/2024) (23 July 2025) – ZambiaLII

Court of Appeal of Zambia
23 July 2025
Home

Judgment

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA CAZ/08/450/2024 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) IN THE MATTER OF A SUBSCRIPTION AND SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO CHAZOWN PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED A COMPANY NOW KNOWN AS KLAPTON BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF SKYVIEW HOTEL (CHINGOLA) LIMITED AND MR. SAASA SHAMAMBO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT NO. 19 OF 2000 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA AND IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION (COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS NO. 75 OF 2001 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA AND IN THE MATTER OF AN INTERIM INJUNCTION OR OTHER INTERIM ORDER BETWEEN: SKYVIEW HOTEL (CHINGOLA) LIMITEI? - 1 ST APPELLANT SAASA SHAMAMBO 2ND APPELLANT AND KLAPTON REINSURANCE LIMITED 1 ST RESPONDENT KLAPTON BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT LIMITED RESPONDENT 2 ND EQUITAS CORPORAT E SERVICES LIMITED 3RD RESPONDENT HON. P.M. MASHEKE -REGISTRAR For the Appellant NI A For the Respondent : Ms. M. Musonda- Equitas Legal Practitioners RULING Cases referred to; 1. Dipak Kumar Desai and Yakub Patel v David Kangwa Nkonde SCZAppeal No. 125 of2010 Legislation referred to; 1. The Rules of the Supreme Court of England (White Book) 1999 Edition. 2. Legal Practitioners (Costs) Order Statutory Instrument No. 6 of The respondents filed the notice of taxation together with the bill of costs on a party-to-party basis, on 19th June, 2025 pursuant to order of court in a ruling dated 11th April, 2025. The appellants did not file any objections. When the matter came up for hearing on 22nd July, 2025, Ms. Musonda informed me that Counsel for the appellant had been served with the notice of taxation, the bill of costs for taxation and the bundle of documents. The notice was served on 3rd July, 2025, returnable 15th July, 2025, when the matter should have initially taken place. When the hearing was rescheduled to 22nd July, 2025, once again Counsel for the respondent served the notice of hearing on Counsel for the respondent. This was evidenced by two R2 affidavits of service filed into court on 11th July, 2025 and 21st July, 2025, respectively. I decided to proceed with the taxation as I opined that the appellants had been given sufficient notification of the taxation proceedings. They had decided not to appear nor file any objections, if at all they were opposed to the respondent's bill of costs. This court is guided that the only costs to be allowed are those reasonably incurred. This is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Kumar Desai & Another v David Kangwa Nkonde1 where it was stated as follows: "A bill of costs by its very nature should reflect all reasonable costs incurred and no padding is allowed. It is incumbent upon taxing masters to appreciate the context within which litigation takes place giving rise to costs and scrutinize all bills of taxation with afine-tooth comb so that only reasonable costs are allowed. Not doing so, leads to unrealistic awards for costs being made and litigants will not get the justice they so deserve." I, therefore, proceeded to tax the bill of costs on a standard basis, item by item, in accordance with Order 62 Rule 4 of the Rules of R3 the Supreme Court of England (White Book) 1999 Edition1 I . additionally used the prescribed scales provided by the Legal Practitioners' (Costs) Order of 20172 . My allocutor below only consists of costs that, in my view, were reasonably incurred. ALLOCATUR: PAGE PROFIT COST DISBURSMENTS (ZMW) 1. 1 579.20 100.00 2. 7 401.10 100.00 3. 8 095.80 4. 2 796.30 100.00 5. 1 134.85 100.00 6. 5 774.75 200.00 7. 3 207.75 200.00 8. 7 702.00 200.00 9. 23 636.45 TOTAL 61 328.20 1 000.00 Total Profit Cost: 61 328.20 Add 15% General fees: Letters, petties and messengers 9 199.23 Total Profit Costs: 70 527.43 Add Disbursements: 1 000.00 71 527.43 R4 Add 10% taxing fee: 6 132.82 77 660.25 Add 16% VAT 9 812.51 Total 87 472.76 HON. P.M MA , REGIST . ..... .-....,,,...-,__.. . · . . 1 •• L /.Ul3 • _____ ~1 TRA -~ . .. ,,.,.. RS

Similar Cases

Astro Holdings Limited and Ors v Edgar Hamuwele (Sued as Receiver of Courtyard Hotel Limited in Receivership) and Ors (Application No.75/2024) (31 January 2025) – ZambiaLII
[2025] ZMCA 9Court of Appeal of Zambia78% similar
Astro Holdings Ltd and Ors v Hamuwele (Sued as receiver of Couryard Hotel in receivership) and Ors (SCZ 8 26 of 2021) (24 December 2021) – ZambiaLII
[2021] ZMSC 154Supreme Court of Zambia78% similar
Faustine Mwenya Kabwe and Ors v Access Financial Services Ltd (In Liquidation) (CAZ/08/442/2024) (29 April 2025) – ZambiaLII
[2025] ZMCA 64Court of Appeal of Zambia76% similar
Safricas Zambia Limited v Barloworld Equipment Zambia Ltd and Ors (CA\/8/20/2024) (13 May 2024) – ZambiaLII
[2024] ZMCA 276Court of Appeal of Zambia76% similar
Idris Ahmed Essa v Mukambi Safari Lodge and Ors (CAZ/8/494/2025) (24 November 2025) – ZambiaLII
[2025] ZMCA 137Court of Appeal of Zambia75% similar

Discussion