IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO.

42 OF 1996

HOLDEN AT LUSAKA

(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:

CHARLES DENNIS MUSENDO APPELLANT

AND

ZAMBIA BREWERIES RESPONDENT

Coram: Sakaia, ACJ; Chaila, ADCJ; Chirwa, JS

3rd September, 1998 and 25th January, 1999

For the Appellant : In person

For the Respondent: Nil

JUDGMENT

Chaila, ADCJ, delivered the judgment of the court.

CHARLES DENNIS MUSENDO, hereinafter referred to as the applicant,

moved this court under Rule 78 of the Supreme Court Rules. The applicant

was an employee of the respondent's company. The respondent company took

out an action against him and dismissed him from employment. He took the

matter to the Industrial Relations Court and the Court ordered that the

applicant be reinstated in the former post as Senior Investigations Officer

and that he be paid his arrears of salary and any allowances he was entitled

to with effect from the date of the purported dismissal plus interest.

The respondent company appealed to this court against the judgment. The

appeal was determined and the judgment was delivered on 29th May, 1997.
 - J2 -

The court in its ruling said:

"It is, therefore, our considered view that the finding of

the Industrial Relations Court that the respondent was
discriminated against because of his social status was
wrong. There is no evidence on record that the respondent
was discriminated against on ground of his social status.
The court below accepted discrimination because there was
no reason found for his dismissal. The expert evidence
rebutted the respondent's evidence. For the reasons we
have given, the appeal is allowed and the order of
reinstatement set aside with costs to the appellant and to
be taxed in the event of disagreement."

The applicant appearing in person submitted written Heads of Arguments

in which he listed four grounds. The first ground was one based on

discrimination. He argued that he was discriminated against by the

respondent in that Mr. Kennedy Mubu who was assigned by the management

was senior to him but was not charged by the respondent when the incident

occured. He argued further that the respondent failed to make an intelligent

decision by dismissing him, leaving Mr. Mubu free when in fact Mr. Mubu's

report and his report were not at variance. In his argument, the applicant

stated that this court in its judgment found that he was the most senior

man when in fact not. The second ground was on ballistic expert evidence.

He argued that the ballistic expert evidence was grossly fabricated in

that ballistic expert did not examine the motor vehicle professionally,

but based her report on the report by Mr. B.S. Phiri. The third ground

was on his former Advocate Mr. Dzekedzeke. He complained that Mr. Dzekedzeke

had professionally misconducted himself by abandoning him at trial level

in the lower court and that he was engaged by the respondent. The fourth

ground was a prayer.

 - J3 -

All the arguments advanced by the applicant have not drawn to our

attention any error or any accidental slip or omission in our judgment.

When he spoke about Mr. Mubu being his senior, the applicant misunderstood

what this court said in the NGWIRA's case which was quoted by us in

delivering our judgment. The applicant has completely failed to show to

this court any errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in our

judgment. The application is therefore misconceived and is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

E.L. SAKALA
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

M.S. CHAILA
ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE

D.K. CHIRWA
SUPREME COURT JUDGE