|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1983 |
|
|
Where a party obtains judgment and execution while an earlier suit on the same facts is pending, this may be an abuse of process warranting setting aside and costs against that party.
Civil procedure – Abuse of process; Default judgment – Setting aside where triable issues disclosed; Execution levied in face of pending action; Costs against party abusing process.
|
29 November 1983 |
|
Instigating a new suit and executing judgment while an earlier action on the same facts was pending was an abuse of process; default judgment set aside.
Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Instituting subsequent action and obtaining execution while prior action on same facts pending; default judgment — setting aside where triable issues disclosed; costs for abuse of process.
|
28 November 1983 |
|
A doctor owes a duty of care, but negligence cannot be inferred against professionals without direct evidential proof.
Tort — Medical negligence — Doctor’s duty of care to patient; standard precautions (oral allergy inquiry and test dose) before penicillin injections; proof on balance of probabilities; no adverse inference of negligence from silence in records in professional cases.
|
2 November 1983 |
| September 1983 |
|
|
Whether the High Court may quash Industrial Relations Court decisions by certiorari despite s.101(3) ouster clause.
Administrative law – Certiorari – Availability against decisions of a statutory Industrial Relations Court – Inferiority of IRC to High Court – Ouster/finality clause – Industrial Relations Act s.101(3) – Joinder of Attorney‑General to represent public/constitutional interest.
|
26 September 1983 |
| July 1983 |
|
|
Excluding a witness who remained in court was a prejudicial misdirection that rendered the conviction unsafe.
Evidence — witness present throughout trial — admissibility and weight of testimony; exclusion of evidence — serious misdirection and prejudice; credibility contested in self‑defence case; appellate relief — conviction quashed and acquittal ordered.
|
13 July 1983 |
| May 1983 |
|
|
Absence of required presidential consent and tenant's rent arrears bar equitable injunction; remedy confined to damages.
Land law – mandatory presidential consent under s.13 Land (Conversion of Titles) Act; contract for lease versus executed lease — dependence on specific performance; equitable remedy (injunction) discretionary and barred where applicant is in breach ('clean hands'); applicability of Landlord and Tenant (Business Premises) Act to executed leases only; landlord's re-entry and forfeiture rights.
|
12 May 1983 |
| March 1983 |
|
|
A non‑citizen has no constitutional right to indefinite stay pending civil claims; s.17 discretion lies with the Chief Immigration Officer.
Administrative law – Immigration – Judicial review of Chief Immigration Officer’s discretion to grant/extend temporary permits – restraint where executive exclusion/removal powers affect non‑nationals; Constitutional law – Article 24(3) – restrictions on freedom of movement of non‑Zambians; Immigration and Deportation Act s.17, s.22, s.23, s.24 – time‑limit substitution and absence of appeal to Minister; Future derogation of rights not actionable.
|
12 March 1983 |
|
Chief Immigration Officer’s discretion to refuse further temporary permits for non‑citizens is not reviewable absent bad faith.
Administrative law – Judicial review of immigration decisions; Immigration and Deportation Act s.17 – discretion to grant/extend temporary permits; Constitution Art.24(3) – statutory restrictions on non‑Zambians’ movement; no appeal to Minister against s.17 decisions; speculative future derogation not actionable.
|
11 March 1983 |
| January 1983 |
|
|
A conviction for theft by a practitioner can render him unfit to practise and justify striking his name off the Roll.
Legal Practitioners Act (Cap. 48) s.52, s.53 proviso; theft by public servant as professional misconduct; criminal conviction prima facie grounds for striking off; 'personally disgraceful' test (Re Weare; Cordery).
|
26 January 1983 |
|
Whether a court may amend an information at the no‑case stage and the requirements for proving treasonous conspiracy.
Criminal procedure – amendment of information at no‑case stage; invisible alternative charges; treason – abolition of two‑witness rule; conspiracy as overt act; accomplice evidence and corroboration; Judges’ Rules and admissibility of statements; duress defence requirements; judicial notice.
|
19 January 1983 |