Results.
30 judgments found.
|
|
|
| December 1984 |
|
|
An adequate apology in defamation normally expunges damages; appellate court reduced an excessive award to K300.
-
Defamation — assessment of quantum of damages — appellate interference limited to misapprehension of facts, misapplication of law, or wholly erroneous award — effect of apology: adequate apology (even if late) usually expunges damages — exemplary damages precluded where apology suffices.
|
4 December 1984 |
|
An adequate apology—even if belated—usually mitigates defamation damages; appellate courts will only disturb quantum in limited circumstances.
-
Defamation — Quantum of damages — Appellate interference only where misapprehension of facts, misapplication of law, or wholly erroneous award — Apology as mitigation — Adequate apology (even belated) normally expunges damages including exemplary damages
|
3 December 1984 |
| November 1984 |
|
|
Detention under the Immigration and Deportation Act requires Article 15 notice, not written grounds under Article 27; irregular accompanying warrants do not invalidate detention.
-
Immigration and Deportation — Detention — Whether detainee entitled to written grounds under Article 27(1)(a) — Article 15(2) notice sufficient — Irregular accompanying warrant breaches Prisons Act but does not vitiate lawful detention — Act in force at all times.
|
9 November 1984 |
|
Detention under the Immigration Act requires verbal reasons under Article 15(2); Article 27 written grounds are not required.
-
Immigration and Deportation Act — detention — duty to inform under s.35(1) and Article 15(2) — Article 27(1)(a) written grounds not applicable to detentions under the Act — irregular accompanying warrant breaches Prisons Act but does not invalidate detention if valid ministerial warrant exists — Act in force at all times, not emergency‑only
|
8 November 1984 |
| October 1984 |
|
|
Failure to obtain required Presidential consent for subletting renders the lease agreement, including rent obligation, unenforceable.
-
Land (Conversion of Titles) Act 1975 s.13(1) — Presidential consent to dealings in land — sub-letting without consent — interpretation of "his land" to include tenants/sub-lessees — illegality/unenforceability of contracts entered without statutory consent.
|
3 October 1984 |
|
Once an employee is shown to have been performing employment tasks, the employer must prove a frolic to avoid liability.
-
Tort — Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment — Onus shifts to employer when servant of particular class performs act ordinarily within employment — Test: was the servant doing something he was employed to do — Prohibited acts or disobedience may still fall within scope of employment.
|
3 October 1984 |
|
The language requirement for written grounds of detention is directory; oral explanation can cure non-compliance.
-
Constitutional law — detention — Article 27(1)(a) — written grounds in a language detainee understands — directory not mandatory — oral explanation with certificate may cure non-compliance
|
2 October 1984 |
|
Employer liable where employee-driver performed the task he was employed for, despite lateness and intoxication.
-
Tort — Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment; onus of proof; proper test: was the servant doing something he was employed to do — drunkenness, lateness or breach of instructions do not automatically establish a frolic
|
2 October 1984 |
|
Subletting without prior Presidential consent under s.13(1) renders the entire sublease, including rent obligations, unenforceable.
-
Land law — Land (Conversion of Titles) Act 1975 s.13(1) — Prior Presidential consent required for dealing with land — "His land" includes lessees/sub-lessees — Subletting without consent renders contract (including rent obligations) unenforceable
|
2 October 1984 |
| September 1984 |
|
|
An immigration detainee is entitled to oral reasons under Article 15(2); Article 27 written grounds do not apply.
-
Immigration and deportation — detention under Immigration and Deportation Act — requirement to inform detainee of reasons (s.35(1) and Art.15(2)) — Article 27(1)(a) written grounds not applicable to immigration detention — defective accompanying warrant is breach of Prisons Act but does not vitiate detention if valid authority exists — Immigration Act operative at all times, not emergency-only.
|
7 September 1984 |
|
The applicant’s prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Act does not contravene Article 20(4); procedural referral was properly before the High Court.
-
Criminal procedure — case stated under s.345 C.P.C. — not available before trial completion; Constitutional reference — Article 29(3) — proper referral despite procedural error; Corrupt Practices Act — retrospective criminalisation and Article 20(4) — does not create new offence; Definition of public officer — Ministers prosecutable under Penal Code via s.103A and s.94; Sentencing — minimum sentence issue noted but not decided
|
6 September 1984 |
| August 1984 |
|
|
Court held criminal convictions inadmissible in civil trials and stressed sketch plans must record measurements at the scene.
-
Civil procedure — Evidence — Admissibility of criminal convictions in civil proceedings; Evidence Act (Zambia) v English practice under s.10 High Court Act; Sketch plans — necessity to record measurements at scene; Expert reconstruction evidence.
|
2 August 1984 |
|
Registration of a caveat presumes disclosure of a claimed interest; fraudulently obtained or unpaid transfers cannot overcome it.
-
Land law — Caveat — s.76 and s.77(1) Lands and Deeds Registry Act — caveat must disclose nature of interest — registration raises presumption of disclosed interest where caveat not produced — fraudulent dealings and incomplete payment do not justify removal of caveat.
|
2 August 1984 |
|
Criminal convictions are inadmissible in civil trials; domestic Evidence Act displaces imported English practice; sketch plans must record measurements at scene.
-
Evidence — Admissibility of criminal convictions in civil proceedings — Evidence Act (Cap.170) prevails over imported English practice under s.10 High Court Act — Sketch plan: measurements must be recorded at scene — Siwingwa v Phiri disapproved
|
1 August 1984 |
|
Registered caveat presumes a disclosed claimable interest; caveat must state the interest claimed.
-
Land law — Caveat — Requirement that caveat specify nature of estate or interest claimed — Registration of caveat raises presumption it disclosed a claimable interest (Lands and Deeds Registry Act ss.76,77(1)) — Court will not aid parties relying on fraud or incomplete payment — statements by owner in court do not create new proprietary rights
|
1 August 1984 |
| June 1984 |
|
|
Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to grant mandamus against a High Court judge; mandamus unavailable against superior judges.
-
Civil procedure — Mandamus — Whether Supreme Court may entertain original application for mandamus to compel High Court judge — Supreme Court primarily appellate; no mandamus against superior court judges.
|
18 June 1984 |
|
The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to grant mandamus against a High Court judge; mandamus not available against superior judges.
-
Civil procedure — mandamus — availability against superior courts/judges; Supreme Court — original jurisdiction — limited and essentially appellate; inherent supervisory jurisdiction — cannot be assumed to grant mandamus at first instance
|
17 June 1984 |
|
Special damages must be specifically pleaded; mental distress damages are recoverable for contractual wrongful suspension.
-
Civil procedure — pleading — necessity to plead special damages; Damages — breach of contract — recoverability of damages for mental distress and inconvenience; Pleading and proof — distinction between general and special damages; Remote loss (purchase of tractor) not recoverable as unpleaded special damage; Addis v Gramophone qualified by later authorities (McCall, Jarvis, Jackson).
|
15 June 1984 |
|
Failure to inform the respondent of arrest grounds constitutes false imprisonment; loss of business requires pleading and proof.
-
Constitutional and criminal procedure — Arrest without warrant — Duty to inform arrested person of true grounds as soon as reasonably practicable — Failure to inform may constitute false imprisonment; reasonable suspicion insufficient if not communicated — Tort damages for false imprisonment — loss of business must be pleaded as special damages and strictly proved — assessment of general damages in absence of aggravation.
|
15 June 1984 |
|
Interlocutory injunctions require irreparable harm and inadequacy of damages; they must not be used to create new favourable conditions or preempt trial issues.
-
Civil procedure — interlocutory injunction — preservation of status quo — adequacy of damages as alternative remedy — injunction not to create new conditions — avoidance of preempting trial merits.
|
15 June 1984 |
|
A Judge at Chambers may hear appeals to set aside default judgments; an arguable defence, not merely explanation, is decisive.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal from Registrar to Judge at Chambers (Order 30 r.10) — Practice Direction No.1/1979: assessment appeals to Supreme Court — Setting aside default judgments: primacy of arguable defence and priority over assessments — Costs where successful appellant was in default.
|
15 June 1984 |
|
Special damages must be specifically pleaded; courts may award general damages for mental distress in breach of contract.
-
Civil procedure — Pleading and proof of damages — Special damages must be specifically pleaded; general damages may be pleaded generally
-
Damages — Breach of contract — Mental distress and inconvenience recoverable as general damages
-
Remoteness — losses must be directly connected to the contract of service to be recoverable
|
14 June 1984 |
|
Arrest without warrant without informing the detainee of grounds can constitute false imprisonment; loss of business must be pleaded and proved.
-
Tort — False imprisonment; Arrest without warrant; Duty to inform arrested person of grounds; Reasonable suspicion insufficient if not communicated; Loss of business must be pleaded as special damages; Assessment and reduction of general damages
|
14 June 1984 |
|
The applicant cannot use an interlocutory injunction to create new advantages; damages were held an adequate remedy.
-
Civil procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — preservation of status quo — adequacy of damages as alternative remedy — injunction not to create new advantages — court to avoid pre-empting merits — equitable sub-sale rights considered
|
14 June 1984 |
|
Defendant's appeal to set aside a default judgment succeeds; an arguable defence outweighs explanation for default; costs ordered against defendant.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal from Registrar — Order 30 r.10 — Practice Direction No.1/1979 — Appeals against assessment to Supreme Court; default judgment — setting aside — Order 20 r.15 — primacy of arguable defence over explanation for default; costs where default caused respondent's expense
|
14 June 1984 |
|
Judge may take judicial notice of a notorious local road; mechanical-defect defence rejected; sentence reduced for first offender.
-
Criminal law — causing death by dangerous driving — defence of sudden mechanical defect — when it succeeds — Evidence — judicial notice/personal knowledge — taking notice that a named road is a public road — limits on judicial use of local knowledge.
|
8 June 1984 |
|
Judge properly took judicial notice that a local road was public; mechanical-defect defence rejected and sentence reduced.
-
Evidence — Judicial notice and use of a judge's personal knowledge of notorious local facts; Road traffic — requirement that offending occur on a public road; Criminal law — defence of sudden mechanical defect; Sentencing — reduction for first offender
|
7 June 1984 |
| May 1984 |
|
|
An interlocutory injunction application cannot be used to decide final issues or be determined on hearsay affidavits.
-
Civil procedure — Interlocutory injunction — Hearsay affidavits — Interim application must not be treated as final determination — Consent judgment required for final relief at interlocutory stage — Nullity of premature final order.
|
10 May 1984 |
| March 1984 |
|
|
Court reversed ex parte dismissal and granted extension due to improper procedural dismissal, while warning against dilatory conduct.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal — delay and extension of time — duty of appellant to lodge record within time and to apply promptly for enlargement — dilatory conduct may justify dismissal for want of prosecution — ex parte dismissal without prior 'unless' or enabling order improper.
|
13 March 1984 |
|
Appeal reinstated and extension granted where ex parte dismissal was irregular; appellants must apply promptly for extensions.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal — Delay and extension of time to lodge record of appeal — Duty of appellant to apply promptly for enlargement — Dismissal for want of prosecution — Validity of ex parte dismissal without prior 'unless' order
|
12 March 1984 |