Bernadette Mwate v Baobab College (2023/HPIR/976) (15 October 2024) – ZambiaLII

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2023 /HPIR/ 976 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) BETWEEN: BERNADETTE MWATE AND BAOBAB COLLEGE RESPONDENT CORAM: JUDGE E. MWANSA Esq APPEARANCES: For the Complainant : Messrs. Ellis & Company For the Respondent Mulenga Mundashi Legal Practiti.oners RULING 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Before me is an Ex-parte Summons to Discharge an earlier Order I granted to the Complainant for leave to testify via Audio Visual Technology. That Order is dated 19th September, 2024. Rl 2.0 THE APPLICATION 2.1. Counsel for the Applicant, the Respondents in the main, argued basically that the Complainant did not reveal any compelling reason nor did they show cogent evidence justifying the exercise of such discretion. 2.2. That it would be cumbersome to properly assess the demeanour of the Complainant's witness. 2.3. And further that it would cause great prejudice to the Respondent's case as it would be difficult to tell £or a fact whether the Complainant's witness is being coached by a third party who is not visible to the Court, whether the video link has been tempered with or indeed whether the witness will be reading from a document during their testimony. 2.4. That the Covid restrictions were no longer inforce across most boarders so travelling was easy. 2.5. That Complainant had not demonstrated any financial hardships, inconvenience, incapability or any other insurmountable challenges justifying the need to testify via zoom video conferencing. R2 ·interest ofj usti,ce, dispense with the taking of any step re,qU'ired or ,authorised by these Rules, or may direct that any step be taken in some manner other than that prescribed by these Rules". ,(Emphasis provid,ed). 3.7. In allowing the witness to testify via video link. I Consider the following: 3.7.L The need to expedite the hearing of this case; 3.7.2. The cost involved even without the Complainant mentioning anything like it. I take Judicial Notice of this fact; and 3.7.3. The health status of the Complainant. 3.7.4. That said, the Application to discharge leave granted to testify via video link is itself dismissed. R4