Automated Summary
Key Facts
The appellants (Germano Mutale Kaulung'ombe, Mark Cletus Mushili, and Sydney Mushili) filed a notice of motion seeking leave to file their record of appeal out of time under Section 4(b) of the Supreme Court Act and Rules 12(1) and 48(1)(4) of the Supreme Court Rules Cap 25. The motion was dismissed by a single Judge (Muyovwe JS) who found the reasons insufficient: the appellants had previously stated the record was ready, and a bereavement did not justify delay. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing non-compliance with court orders risks the justice system's efficiency and noting the applicants could have acted earlier. The motion was dismissed with costs.
Issues
The court considered whether the appellants' application for leave to file the record of appeal out of time under section 4(b) of the Supreme Court Act and Rules 12(1) and 48(1)(4) of the Supreme Court Rules Cap 25 should be granted, given the reasons provided for the delay (seeking instructions and a bereavement) and the single Judge's rejection of those grounds.
Holdings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' motion for leave to file the record of appeal out of time, finding the reasons insufficient as the applicants could have acted earlier and the bereavement did not justify the delay.
Remedies
- Costs were awarded to be agreed or taxed in default of agreement following the dismissal of the motion.
- The motion was dismissed by the court with costs to be agreed or taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized that the presiding judge must be satisfied there is sufficient reason to grant an extension of time for filing an appeal, as outlined in the Supreme Court Act and Rules. The applicants' failure to demonstrate such justification led to the dismissal of their motion.
Cited Statute
- Supreme Court Act
- Supreme Court Rules
Judge Name
- A.M. Wood
- R.M.C. Kaoma
- C. Kajimanga
Passage Text
- We have perused the motion and have no difficulty in agreeing with the single Judge's decision. Litigation is fraught with risks and one risk which should not be taken lightly is the risk of non-compliance with court orders. Court orders and rules are there for the efficient running of the justice system with predictability. Orders for extension of time are not granted as a matter of routine. The presiding Judge must be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for exercising this discretion in favour of the applicant.
- We see no merit in this motion as the applicants could have instructed their advocates earlier and the record of appeal could have been filed long before the bereavement. We therefore dismiss the motion with costs to be agreed or taxed in default of agreement.