|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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 |
|
Appellate court reduced excessive libel award to nominal damages, holding a sufficient apology largely removes basis for damages.
Defamation — Assessment of damages — Appellate interference limited — Adequate apology (even if belated) mitigates or virtually expunges damages — Exemplary damages precluded where apology suffices — Nominal award where no actual harm shown.
|
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 and Deportation Act requires oral reasons under Article 15(2), not written grounds under Article 27(1)(a).
Immigration and Deportation Act — Detention of prohibited immigrant — Requirement to be informed of reasons (Art.15(2), s.35(1)) — Applicability of Article 27(1)(a) (written grounds) — Irregularity in accompanying warrant; effect on legality of detention — Act not emergency-only law.
|
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 |
|
Requirement that grounds be in a language detainee understands is directory and curable if orally explained to respondent.
Constitutional law — detention — Article 27(1)(a) — grounds in writing in a language detainee understands — mandatory versus directory — defect curable by oral explanation and certificate; time and detail requirements remain mandatory.
|
2 October 1984 |
|
Employer vicariously liable where employee was doing the task he was employed to do despite intoxication and breach of instructions.
Tort — Vicarious liability; master and servant — course of employment — onus of proof; test: was the servant doing something he was employed to do; breach of orders or prohibited acts not necessarily outside scope.
|
2 October 1984 |
|
A sublease made without prior Presidential consent under s.13(1) is unenforceable, including rent obligations.
Land law – Land (Conversion of Titles) Act 1975 s.13(1) – Prior written Presidential consent – Subletting without consent – Effect on enforceability of contract and rent provisions; statutory construction; illegality doctrine.
|
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 |
|
Whether the Corrupt Practices Act retrospectively criminalised conduct and whether a minister was prosecutable under prior law.
Criminal procedure – case stated (s.345 CPC) only post-trial; Article 29(3) reference procedure; retrospective criminalisation (Art.20(4)); Corrupt Practices Act s.26(1) v Penal Code s.94; ministers prosecutable; High Court procedural error; Supreme Court power to hear or remit.
|
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 not admissible in civil trials under the Evidence Act; sketch plans must record measurements at the scene.
Civil evidence – Admissibility of criminal convictions in civil proceedings – Zambian Evidence Act governs; High Court Act s.10 cannot import English practice where statute exists – Siwingwa v Phiri disapproved. Evidence – Sketch plans – all relevant measurements and details should be recorded at scene; post hoc additions are undesirable. Civil procedure – appellate review – deference to trial judge’s credibility findings and apportionment of negligence.
|
1 August 1984 |
|
Caveat must disclose the interest claimed; registration presumes such disclosure and courts will not aid competing wrongdoers.
Land law – Caveat must state nature of interest (s.77(1)) – Registration of caveat raises presumption it disclosed an interest (s.76) – Caveator’s interest must be lawfully recognisable – Owner’s in‑court statements cannot create new rights – Courts reluctant to assist competing wrongdoers.
|
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, as mainly appellate, cannot grant mandamus against High Court judges; mandamus is not available against superior court judges.
Civil procedure – mandamus – original jurisdiction of Supreme Court – supervisory jurisdiction over High Court – mandamus not available against superior court judges; limited inherent original jurisdiction incidental to appeals.
|
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 |
|
Unpleaded special damages cannot be recovered; courts may award damages for mental distress in breach of contract.
Civil procedure – Pleading and proof of damages – Special damages must be specifically pleaded; general damages (including mental distress/inconvenience) may be awarded for breach of contract.
|
14 June 1984 |
|
Police must promptly inform detained persons of arrest grounds; unpleaded loss of business cannot be awarded without strict proof.
Civil procedure; Tort — False imprisonment; Arrest without warrant — duty to inform grounds; Reasonable suspicion; Untrue or undisclosed grounds; Loss of business — special damages and proof; Assessment of general damages.
|
14 June 1984 |
|
Interlocutory injunctions must preserve the status quo and are inappropriate where damages are an adequate remedy.
Interlocutory injunctions – preservation of status quo – adequacy of damages as alternative – injunctions not to create favourable new conditions – avoidance of pre-empting trial issues.
|
14 June 1984 |
|
A default judgment was set aside because an arguable defence existed; appeals from Registrar to judge at Chambers remain competent despite assessment appeal rules.
Civil procedure – Default judgment – Setting aside under Order 20 r.15 – Arguable defence more important than explanation of default; appeal from Registrar to judge at Chambers (Order 30 r.10) distinct from appeal against assessment to Supreme Court (Practice Direction No.1 of 1979) – Costs where successful appellant caused default.
|
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 may take judicial notice of a notorious local road; mechanical-defect defence rejected; sentence reduced for first offender.
Criminal law – dangerous driving causing death – defence of sudden mechanical defect – judicial notice and judges’ personal knowledge of notorious facts – public road – sentencing discretion and mitigation 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 |
|
Appellants must promptly seek extensions for delayed records; ex parte dismissal taken without supporting order may be reversed.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Delay and extension of time – Duty on appellants to apply promptly for enlargement where transcripts unavailable – Sitting back until respondent’s application to dismiss is perilous – Ex parte dismissal without supporting application or enabling order may be set aside.
|
12 March 1984 |