Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Germano Mutale Kaulung'ombe, Mark Cletus Mushili, and Sydney Mushili (appellants) seeking leave to file their record of appeal out of time against Tazama Pipelines Limited. The motion was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which agreed with a prior single Judge's decision that the appellants' reasons—seeking further instructions and a bereavement—were insufficient. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders and rules for efficient justice administration, noting the appellants could have filed earlier.
Issues
The court addressed whether the appellants were entitled to 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. The motion was dismissed as the court found the appellants' reasons—seeking further instructions and a bereavement—insufficient. The judgment emphasized that extensions are not granted routinely and require compelling justification, noting the record could have been filed earlier despite the bereavement.
Holdings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' motion for leave to file the record of appeal out of time, finding that the reasons provided (seeking further instructions and a bereavement) were insufficient. The court emphasized that extensions are not granted routinely and that the applicants could have acted earlier, leading to the decision to dismiss the motion with costs.
Remedies
We therefore dismiss the motion with costs to be agreed or taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Principles
The court applied its discretion under Section 4(b) of the Supreme Court Act and Rules 12(1) and 48(1)(4) of the Supreme Court Rules to deny an out-of-time appeal application. The decision emphasized that extensions must be granted based on sufficient justification, with the court prioritizing adherence to procedural rules to maintain judicial efficiency and predictability. The presiding judge concluded that the appellants' reasons (seeking further instructions and a bereavement) did not warrant an extension, as the appeal record could have been filed earlier.
Cited Statute
- Supreme Court Act
- Supreme Court Rules
Judge Name
- A.M. Wood
- R.M.C. Kaoma
- C. Kajimanga
Passage Text
- The single Judge did not accept the reasons given by Mr. Malipenga because at the earlier sitting he had indicated that the record of appeal was ready. The Judge was also of the view that the bereavement was not a sufficient reason because the record of appeal could have been filed long before the bereavement.
- We have perused the motion and have no difficulty in agreeing with the single Judge's decision... 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.
- This is a notice of motion by the appellants, for leave to file the record of appeal out of time pursuant to section 4 (b) of the Supreme Court Act and Rules 12 (1) and 48 (1) (4) of the Supreme Court Rules Cap 25 of the Laws of Zambia. The affidavit in support, sworn by Robson Malipenga, states that Muyovwe JS sitting as a single Judge refused to grant the appellants their second application to file their record of appeal out of time.