Skip to document content
Skip to main menu
Skip to search
Home
Judgments
Legislation
Publications
Newsletters
Speeches
Law Reform Reports
Paralegal Resources
Gazettes
Bills
About
Help
Home
Collections
Case indexes
Commercial
15 documents
Advanced search
Filters
Commercial
Filters
Years
2020
2018
2017
2014
2013
2012
2006
1980
Topics
Abuse of Process
Administrative Action
Administrative Review
Arrest and detention
Attribution of Costs
Class actions (environmental)
Constitutional Law
Declaratory Relief
Environmental
Environmental impact and risk assessment
Judicial Review
Land
Land Dispute
Land use
Locus standi in environmental litigation
Minerals, oil and gas
Mining Law
Persecution based on political opinion
Plants, forests and forestry (flora)
Powers of The Attorney-General
Procedural Fairness
Supervisory Jurisdiction
Sustainable development
Taxation law
Temporary Injunction
Writ of Mandamus
Alphabet
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
Sort by:
Title (A - Z)
Title (Z - A)
Date (Newest first)
Date (Oldest first)
Filter
15 documents
Title
Date
Davies Shamatanga v Fandu Resources Investments Limited (HP 317 of 2020) [2020] ZMHC 20 (22 August 2020)
Interlocutory injunction granted to restrain alleged unlawful mining/exploration on disputed land pending trial.
Interlocutory injunction — American Cyanamid test: serious question to be tried; adequacy of damages; balance of convenience — preservation of status quo — competing surface rights and mining/exploration rights — environmental assessment and Director of Mines' consent issues.
Judgment
22 August 2020
Andreas Panagiotis Xirocostas v Poma (Appeal 206 of 2013) [2020] ZMSC 8 (13 May 2020)
Judgment
13 May 2020
RAE Zambia Limited v The Attorney General & Another (Appeal 112 of 2018) [2018] ZMCA 403 (28 November 2018)
A party likely to be affected by reissued exploration rights ought to be joined under Order 14/5(1) HCR.
Procedure — Joinder of parties — Order 14/5(1) HCR and Order 15/4(1) RSC — person entitled to or claiming interest in the subject matter or likely to be affected — ministerial cancellation and reissuance of petroleum exploration licence — discretion to join aimed at effective adjudication — distinction from Abel Mulenga.
Judgment
28 November 2018
Mooto (SG Zambia Association of Timber and Forestry Based Industries) v Director of Forestry and Another (2017/HP/1016) [2018] ZMHC 560 (28 July 2018)
Court quashed verbal timber export ban for illegality, ordered licences issued; damages claim dismissed.
Judicial review — Forests Act (ss. 50, 53, 62) — Illegality and procedural impropriety for failure to give written notice and show cause — Ministerial verbal export ban unsupported by statute — Mandamus to statutory officer to issue/renew licences — Damages/compensation dismissed; s.56(1)(b) bars compensation.
Judgment
28 July 2018
United Quarries Limited v Chongwe District Council (HP 1001 of 2007) [2018] ZMHC 322 (23 February 2018)
Judgment
23 February 2018
Katenge Resources Ltd v Avarmma Mining Company Ltd and Ors (CAZ 8 78 of 2017) [2017] ZMCA 144 (28 November 2017)
Court allowed final extension to file record of appeal, finding delay not inordinate nor prejudicial.
Civil procedure – appeal – extension of time to file record of appeal – Order 13 Rule 3(3) Court of Appeal Rules – inordinate delay a question of fact – prejudice to respondent – dismissal for want of prosecution.
Judgment
28 November 2017
Bukomo Mining Limited v Luiri Gold Mines Limited and Others (2010/HP/448) [2017] ZMHC 506 (28 September 2017)
Plaintiff’s Sheriff-auction acquisition of immovable mining assets failed due to irregular execution and lack of statutory surface rights and licence.
Civil procedure – Execution and sale by Sheriff – writ of fieri facias vs sale of immovable property; Sheriff’s Act ss14–15 – indemnity and purchaser protection; High Court Rules Order XLII – elegit and execution procedure; Mines and Minerals Development Act – mineral processing licence, surface rights, village consent and Zambian shareholding requirements; bona fide purchaser for value/no notice.
Judgment
28 September 2017
Kangwa & Others v Zambia Environmental Management Agency & Others (Appeal 40 of 2012) [2014] ZMSC 143 (30 October 2014)
EIA consultation rights are not limited to title-holders; project approvals and remedial consultations justified dismissal of the appeal.
Environmental law – EIA process and public consultation; locus standi not confined to title-holders; admissibility and weight of expert evidence; mining licence/outsourcing; Ministerial suspension and legitimate expectation; procedural compliance for change of land use.
Judgment
30 October 2014
Lafarge Cement Zambia Limited PLC v Sinkamba (Citizens for a Better Environment) (Appeal 169 of 2009) [2013] ZMSC 31 (26 November 2013)
Default judgment entered prematurely was irregular; respondent lacked locus standi to sue over the public Environmental Protection Fund.
Civil procedure – Default judgment – Irregular entry before 21 days contrary to Practice Direction – Effect of irregular default judgment; Constitutional/public law – Locus standi under Mines and Minerals Development Act s.123 – Private litigant cannot compel EPF payments; Environmental Protection Fund – claims against public fund are State prerogative; Frivolous and vexatious claims; Costs follow event.
Judgment
26 November 2013
Mopani Copper Mines PLC v Kitwe Tabernacle End Time Message Ministries and Others (HK 330 of 2010) [2013] ZMHC 44 (16 October 2013)
Equitable assignment of land prevails over a later certificate issued in error; later title cancelled under s.34(1)(e).
Property law – equitable interest from unregistered assignment; priority of earlier title over later certificate; Commissioner of Lands’ improvident allocation; s.34(1)(e) Lands and Deeds Registry Act – cancellation of later certificate; no damages without proof.
Judgment
16 October 2013
Chipalo and Others v Lusaka City Council (HP 766 of 2008) [2012] ZMHC 61 (16 October 2012)
Local authority’s unauthorized offer letters gave rise to refundable payments and a duty to recommend plaintiffs to the Commissioner of Lands.
Local government — State land allocation — Local authority issuing offer letters outside Commissioner of Lands’ powers — Illegality defence — Specific performance inappropriate where alienation power vested in Commissioner — Damages and administrative recommendation as remedy.
Judgment
16 October 2012
Scrirocco Enterprises Limited v Kafue District Council and Attorney General (Appeal 60 of 2011) [2012] ZMSC 85 (3 August 2012)
Council's sand levy including crushed stones upheld as intra vires; originating summons appropriate; no double taxation found.
Local Government levies – By-laws imposing sand levy inclusive of crushed stones – Proper procedure (originating summons) for statutory construction – Wednesbury unreasonableness – No double taxation where national mining fees and local levies serve different taxing purposes.
Judgment
3 August 2012
Loongo v Loongo and Shafwamba and Others (HP 973 of 2006) [2012] ZMHC 20 (5 March 2012)
Whether an interlocutory injunction should restrain defendants amid competing registered title and customary occupation claims.
Civil procedure — Interim injunction — Land dispute — Registered title v customary occupation — Balance of convenience and risk of creating new conditions pending trial — Discharge of ex parte injunction.
Judgment
5 March 2012
Chimambo and Others v Commissioner of Lands and Others [2006] ZMSC 33 (10 January 2006)
Whether land grants made during de‑gazettement remain valid and whether allocations after re‑gazettement without statutory authority are lawful.
Forest law – de‑gazettement and re‑gazettement – validity of grants made during de‑gazetted period; Administrative law – judicial review – illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of grants made after re‑gazettement without statutory authority; Civil procedure – availability of declaratory relief in judicial review and counter‑claims (Order 53).
Judgment
10 January 2006
People v Masauso and Another (HNR 252 of 1980) [1980] ZMHC 10 (7 April 1980)
A first‑class magistrate deputed within the same district may try an uncommenced case without formal transfer; an unjustified discharge is a nullity.
Criminal procedure – Transfer between magistrates of the same class within the same district – Formal order of transfer unnecessary for uncommenced (not part‑heard) cases – Discharge without hearing can be nullity and not an acquittal.
Judgment
7 April 1980
1
>