Results.
6 judgments found.
|
|
|
| February 2008 |
|
|
Whether laboratory and medical evidence of caustic soda ingestion defeats an inference of drunkenness following refusal to breathalyse.
-
Employment law — wrongful dismissal — proof of drunkenness at work — evidential weight of laboratory and medical evidence versus refusal to take breathalyser test — failure to address and explain discounting of employer’s witnesses.
|
29 February 2008 |
|
Complaint filed well beyond s85(3) time limits was statute-barred; the Act excludes Defence Force personnel.
-
Industrial and Labour Relations Act s85(3) — thirty-day time limit for complaints; limited three-month extension after exhaustion of administrative channels — leave to file out of time; Zambia Defence Force exclusion — Act does not apply to Defence Force personnel (including Zambia Air Force).
|
27 February 2008 |
|
An unproven counter-claim is not a ground to set aside a properly entered default judgment; stay of execution pending proof is appropriate.
-
Civil procedure — Default judgment — Whether an unproved counter-claim/set-off can set aside a properly entered default judgment — Proper remedy is stay of execution pending proof of counter-claim — Multiplicity of actions distinguished on facts.
|
26 February 2008 |
|
An unproven counter-claim cannot set aside a properly entered default judgment; stay execution pending proof instead.
-
Commercial law — default judgment — tenant admitted liquidated rent arrears by failing to defend — counter-claim as set-off must be proved — unproven counter-claim cannot set aside default judgment — stay of execution pending proof appropriate — multiplicity of actions not required
|
25 February 2008 |
|
An application to extend time to lodge a record of appeal is incompetent in the full Court unless first refused by a single judge under Rule 12(1).
-
Civil procedure — extension of time to lodge record of appeal — 'unless' order — Rule 12(1) procedure to single judge — incompetence of full Court application under Rule 48(4) where judge not first applied to.
|
21 February 2008 |
|
Caretaker licence did not create a right of first refusal or entitlement to refund for renovations; appeal dismissed with costs.
-
Property law — caretaker arrangement construed as licence not tenancy — exclusive possession absent — no right of first refusal from advertising clause — contractual exclusion of refund for repairs — specific performance not available where no pre-existing purchasable interest — protection of bona fide purchaser
|
11 February 2008 |