Lutwika Mashilipa v Discover Insurance Comapny Limited (2023/HPC/0730) (19 August 2024) – ZambiaLII

., ,. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2023/HPC/0730 AT THE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Civil Jurisdiction) HIGH COURT OF 2A 1 ,r- 1 MBIA BETWEEN: COf"ll"IU~ -Ara C Al DIVISION L LUTWIKA MASHILIPA f g AU6 2U24 AND REu,~T RY DISCOVER INSURANCE COMPANY LIM TP.O. t,u)( ;>Q0~7. lUSAC(A RESPONDENT Coram: Hon. Lady Justice Chilombo Bridget Maka For the Applicant: Messrs. K. Mwale & Company For the Respondent: Messrs. Nchito & Nchito RULING Legislation Referred to: 1. Court of Appeal Act No 7 of 2016 Cases Referred to: 2. Chainama Hills Golf Club Limited vs. Golf Consultancy and Tourism Limited CAZ/08/19/2022. 3. Mirriam Banda Zimba vs. CFB Medical Centre Limited CAZ/08/344/2022. 1. Introduction 1.1. The Applicant took out summons for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Order 10 Rule 4 Subrule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules. .- ' " 1.2. The summons are accompanied by an affidavit and skeleton arguments both dated the 14th August, 2024. 2. Background 2.1. The Applicant commenced action against the Respondent on 26th October, 2023. Both parties settled their pleadings and the matter proceeded to trial. 2.2. Both parties testified and final Judgment was rendered on 16th July, 2024. The Applicant's claims were dismissed with costs. 2. 3. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the said Judgment. 3. Consideration and Determination 3.1. I have considered the affidavit evidence and the skeleton arguments advanced by the Applicant. 3.2. Section 23 of the Court of Appeal Act stipulates the instances when an appeal to the Court of Appeal would require leave of Court. A perusal of the said provision reveals that there is no requirement for leave to be obtained before a party can appeal from a Judgment of the High Court. 3.3. The foregoing was restated by the Court of Appeal in the cases of Chainama Hills Golf Club Limited vs. Golf Consultancy and Tourism Limitedl1 I and Mirriam Banda Zimba vs. CFB Medical Centre Limited121 • R2 4. Conclusion 4.1. There is no need for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal against the Judgment in issue. This is because the Judgment does not fall in any of the categories set out in Section 23 of the Act. 4.2. The Application is therefore misconceived and 1s accordingly dismissed. Delivered at Lusaka this 19th day of August, 2024 .............. _afjf)_ .".. ........ . Chilombo Bridget Maka HIGH COURT JUDGE R3