Food Lovers Zambia Limited v Given Kachinga and Ors (APPEAL No 206/2021) (22 August 2024) – ZambiaLII

L-\. \a IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA APPEAL No 206/2021 HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Civil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: FOOD LOVERS ZAMBIA LIMITED APPELLANT AND GIVEN KACHINGA & 124 OTHERS RESPONDENT CORAM: Kondolo SC, Majula and Banda-Bobo JJA On 15th August, 2024 and 22nd August 2024 For the Appellant: MZ Mwandenga & Company. For the Respondent: LMChambers JUDGMENT MAJULA JA, delivered the Judgment of the Court. Cases referred to: 1. Guardall Security Group Limited v Reinford Kabwe - CAZ Appeal No. 44 of 2019. 2. Citibank Zambia Limited v Suhayl Dudhia - SCZ Appeal No. 6 of 2022. -J 2Legislation referred to: 1. The Industrial and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 2008 Rules referred to: 1. The Court of Appeal Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 1 This is an appeal from the Ruling of Honourable Mr Justice E. Mwansa, High Court - Industrial Relations Division, delivered on 9th July 2021. 1.2 Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the Appellant appealed to this Court fronting three grounds of appeal as follows: "1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and fact by not appreciating the purport and meaning of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Guardall Security Limited vs Reinford Kabwe (Appeal No. 44/2019). 2. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he stated that: Based on this direction, this Court's realization that Judges in this Division have overflowing diaries and that even if this matter were -J 3to be dismissed and later recommenced, it may not find space in any one Diary." 3. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he directed that proceedings bearing cause COMP. No. IRCLK/ 125/ 2016 be considered to have recommenced on the 9th July 2021." 1.3 The Supreme Court having pronounced itself and having guided on this issue, we decided to deal with the issue on paper without the presence of the parties. 2.0 HEARING OF THE APPEAL 2 .1 When the matter came up for hearing on 15th August, 2024 there was no attendance from either of the parties. 3.0 OUR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION 3 .1 The issue for consideration is whether the court below had lost jurisdiction in the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 (3)(b) (i) (ii) of the Act. The Appellants in their heads of argument have placed reliance on the case of Guardall Security Group Limited v Reinford Kabwe1 where we had held that failure to render a Judgment within one year -J 4as prescribed in the Act, implied a termination of jurisdiction on the part of the court to do anything in the matter. 3.2 The Guardall case has since been overturned by the Supreme Court case of Citibank Zambia Limited v Suhayl Dudhia2 where the apex court held that: "We accordingly hold that the case of Guardall Securities Group Limited v Reinford Kabwe is bad law and is hereby reversed. This by necessary implication means that all other decisions based on the Guardall case can suffer no better fate." 3.3 In view of the aforestated, this appeal is incompetently before us and is therefore accordingly dismissed. We shall make no order as to costs as we dealt with the appeal in the absence of the parties. :::> M.M. Kondolo, SC COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE ........~ ~i:l .............. . ···········~ ·················· B.M .. ~ajula A.M. Banda-Bobo COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE