Supreme Court of Zambia - 2003 February

6 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
February 2003
Leave under section 281 should not be refused by pre-judging a pending defamation claim; matter remitted for trial.
Companies Act s281 – leave to proceed against company in liquidation – requirement and scope of inquiry; civil procedure – whether leave application may adjudicate merits – prohibition on pre-judging; tort – defamation (slander) actionable per se; prior unappealed Registrar’s ruling; liquidator’s powers vs. right to trial.
28 February 2003
Whether leave under section 281 should be refused after a prior ruling that the applicant’s claim disclosed actionable slander.
Companies Act s281 – leave to proceed against company in liquidation – discretion to grant leave where dispute predates winding up – trial court must not prejudge merits – prior ruling that claim disclosed actionable slander binding absent appeal.
28 February 2003
Discovery of a contaminant in an unopened bottle does not establish actionable negligence without consumption and proven injury.
Product liability; negligence — Donoghue v Stevenson; requirement of consumption and consequent injury; Food and Drugs Act — contamination a criminal offence; statutory duty vs civil remedy; causation and proof of actual damage.
19 February 2003
Judicial review examines process not merits; Article 43(3) permits Parliament wide discretion to remove a former President’s immunity without prior formal charges.
Constitutional law – Presidential immunity – Article 43(3): scope and procedure for removal; Judicial review – scope, evidence and remedies; Illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety; Parliamentary procedure and justiciability; Jurisdictional limits of High Court regarding parliamentary proceedings (Section 34).
18 February 2003
Applicant who did not consume contaminated drink cannot recover; s3(b) breach carries criminal penalties only.
Tort — Negligence: ingestion and actual injury required for actionable claim against manufacturers; Breach of statutory duty — Food and Drugs Act s3(b) creates criminal penalties, not an automatic civil remedy; causation and proof of damage required.
18 February 2003
Manufacturer not liable in negligence for an unopened contaminated product absent consumption and proven damage.
Tort — Manufacturer liability — contaminated food/drink — requirement of consumption and proven injury for actionable negligence — Food and Drugs Act criminalises contamination but is silent on civil remedies — no nominal damages for negligence.
18 February 2003