- The Zambia Gazette
- Subject Index
- Law scholarship
- Contact Us
Statutory Interpretation – Section 34 of the Zambia Institute of Architects Act – Whether this section applies to matters not envisaged under Part IV of the Act
The Appellant is an architect and a member of the Zambia Institute of Architects. He decided to stand as President of the Institute in 2013. He garnered ten proxies in preparation for his bid to stand as President of the Institute. The proxies were however rejected and as a result he lost the elections even though he had the highest number of votes when the proxies were taken into consideration. The Appellant decided to challenge the procedure adopted by the Respondent’s Council during the election by way of judicial review. The learned judge rejected the application for leave to apply for judicial review primarily because the Appellant had not exhausted the appellate process as section 34 of the Zambia Institute of Architects Act, Chapter 442 of the Laws of Zambiaª provides for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Council to appeal to the Minister within thirty days. The Appellant appealed on one ground, that the learned judge erred in law and fact and misinterpreted the law in her ruling when she relied upon and based her judgment on section 34 of the Zambia Institute of Architects Act, a section which had no application at all to the matter before the judge.
ª Section 34 of the Zambia Institute of Architects Act provides that “A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Council under this Part may within thirty days appeal to the Minister.”
1. It was a misdirection on the part of the learned judge to rely on Part IV of Cap 442 as the basis for dismissing the Appellant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that any person aggrieved by the Council “under this Part” may within thirty days appeal to the Minister. Section 34 refers to Part IV of the Act, it does not deal with the conduct of elections for members of the Institute. It deals in broad terms with the registration of architects and should not have been relied upon as a basis for rejecting the application for judicial review.