AMENDED WITH LEAVE OF COURT

REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA
WRIT OF SUMMONS
(for issue in the principal registry)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2019/

AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
HOLDEN AT MANSA
(Civil Jurisdiction)
Sign____________________________________________

BETWEEN:
Josephine Kateule, Kasumpa Village Nchelenge

JOSEPHINE KATEULE PLAINTIFF

AND

REUBEN CHABALA DEFENDANT

To: Defendant, Lusaka in the Lusaka Province.

_

You are commanded in the President’s name that within 14 days after the service of this writ on
you, inclusive of the day of such service, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in an
action at the suit JOSEPHINE KATEULE whose residential address is Kasumpa Village,
Nchelenge District, whose postal address is C/O Mangamu Primary School, P.O Box 740049
Nchelenge and whose electronic address is C/O Dennis Chipopo Bwalya
charismata2014@gmail.com and take notice that in default of your so doing the Plaintiff may
proceed therein, and judgment may be given in your absence.

WITNESS The Honorable Irene Mambilima Chief Justice of Zambia dated the
day of in the year of 2019.

Memorandum to be subscribed on writ

Notes:
(1) This writ is to be served within twelve calendar months from the date thereof, or, if
renewed, within six calendar months from the date of the last renewal, including the
day of such date, and not afterwards.
(2) The defendant (or defendants) may appear hereto by entering an appearance (or
appearances) either personally or by his solicitor at the Principal Registry, High Court
for Zambia, Lusaka.
(3) A defendant appearing personally may, if he desire, enter his appearance by post and
the appropriate forms may be obtained from any High Court Registry or from any
Subordinate Court Office. The forms, when completed, should be sent in triplicate by
registered letter addressed to “The Registrar, P.O. Box 50067, Lusaka”, so as to reach
him in the time stated above.
Endorsements to be made on the writ before issue thereof

The Plaintiff’s claim is for:

1. Damages for the defamatory statements uttered by the defendant;

2. Damages for hardships, mental distress and anguish caused as a result of the
defamatory statements uttered by the defendant;

3. Any other relief as Court may deem fit and just;

4. Costs.

_________________________
This writ was issued by: Ms. Josephine Kateule of Kasumpa Village, Nchelenge whose
address for service is as above and whose postal address for service is C/O Mangamu
Primary School P.O. Box 740049 Nchelenge and whose electronic address is C/O Dennis
Chipopo Bwalya charismata2014@gmail.com
Endorsement to be made within three days after service

This writ was served by me at:

on the defendant on the day of 2019

Endorsed the day of 2019

(Signed)
(Address)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2019/
AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
HOLDEN AT MANSA
(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN

JOSEPHINE KATEULE PLAINTIFF

AND

REUBEN CHABALA DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM- AMENDED WITH LEAVE OF COURT

1. The Plaintiff is and was at all material times a citizen of the Republic of Zambia resident in
the Luapula Province of Zambia.

2. The Defendant is and was at all material times a citizen of the Republic of Zambia resident in
the Luapula Province of Zambia.

3. The Plaintiff asked the Defendant in the month of September 2019 to go into her field to
harvest cassava.
4. The Plaintiff’s duties included, among other, identifying and securing quarries for road
development and maintenance, managing axle load control on the core road network,
introducing and managing the tolling of selected economic roads in Zambia, acquiring and
managing the Road Development Agency motor vehicle fleet and all road construction
machinery and equipment, acquiring and managing all air cooling and alternative power
supply systems of the agency, identifying and growing the revenue generation base from
optimal usage of Agency assets and reporting on the above stated matters to management and
the board through the CEO.

5. The salient provisions of the said agreement provided for allowances, staff welfare benefits
and medical assistance inter alia.

6. The aforementioned agreement also contained, inter alia, a clause of the renewal of the
contract on the condition that the Plaintiff would give written notice to the Defendant on his
intention to renew 3 months before the expiry of the contract.

7. On 3rd May, 2016, the Plaintiff was requested by top management to express intention to have
his contract renewed three (3) months before it expired. In fact, the Plaintiff was sick and in
hospital when the Defendant through Mr. Andrew Chisala, the Defendant’s Director Human
Resource and Administration followed the Plaintiff to Lusaka Trust Hospital where he was
admitted with a message that the Human Resource and Administration Committee of the
Board was meeting to deliberate on, among other key things, renewal of contracts for three
Directors (Mrs. Mwaka Ngoma – Director Legal, the late Eng. Emmanuel Kaunda – Director
Maintenance and Eng. Steven Mwale – the plaintiff) whose contracts were nearing expiry
dates within or around three (3) months from then.
8. Mr. Chisala persuaded the plaintiff to write and hand him the said letter for onward
submission to the Human Resource and Administration Committee of the Board. Mr. Chisala
proceeded with an offer to draft and type the letter of renewal for the Plaintiff to sign. Later,
on the same day, Mr. Chisala sent the Plaintiff’s Personal Assistant – Ms. Rose Tembo to
bring the letter for the Plaintiff to sign. The letter of renewal was thus signed and submitted
for consideration.

9. The said letter had been typed for the Plaintiff to sign at the instruction of the Defendant for
the Plaintiff’s contract to be renewed for a further term of three years.

10. The Defendant’s actions of following the Plaintiff wherever he was, even to the extent of
following the Plaintiff to hospital where he was admitted

(1) persuading him to put in the letter requesting for renewal of his contract on the basis that
the Human Resource and Administration Committee was waiting for it to be submitted
for their consideration,

(2) offering to draft and type the letter of renewal of the Plaintiff’s contract, and

(3) typing the letter of renewal for the Plaintiff to sign,

gave the Plaintiff a legitimate expectation that his contract would be renewed for a further
term.

11. The Defendant, by its actions demonstrated all intentions and desires to keep the Plaintiff in
employment with the Defendant at whatever cost.

12. On 8 July, 2016, however, the Plaintiff received a shocking a reply to the effect that his
contract would not be renewed on the ground of unsatisfactory performance.

13. The said letter reads in part as follows:

“I regret to inform you that Management is unable to renew your contract

for a further term of three (3) years on account of your unsatisfactory
performance…

1. You have not provided guidance and leadership to your team, bordering
on dysfunctionality of the Department and total failure to achieve targets;

2. You have been divisive in your department instead of being a team player
and unifying factor;

3. You have been negligent in some of your actions, which have brought
difficulties for Management; and

4. You have not been result oriented leading to a complete failure to meet
critical targets.”

14. In their natural and ordinary meaning, the words used by the Defendant meant and were
understood to mean that the Plaintiff is disputatious, conflict ridden person who does not
complete any instruction he is tasked to complete.
15. The Plaintiff will also show at trial that during the course of his employment, his performance
was assessed and he scored an excellent mark on his work output and this was on the 29 th day
of December, 2015.

16. The Plaintiff proved himself to be a hard-working, result oriented employee that his superiors,
Mr. Bernard Mwape Chiwala and Mr. Kanyuka Mumba, Director and Chief Executive
Officer of the Defendant in 2015 and 2016 respectively, on countless occasions elected the
Plaintiff to act in his absence, a high profile position which was entrusted only to the Plaintiff.
All departmental reports that the Plaintiff submitted were never queried by Management and
always accepted and passed on to the board of the Defendant.

17. It therefore came as a complete shock that the Defendant’s reason for not renewing the
Plaintiff’s contract was unsatisfactory performance, an allegation which is not only
outrageous but is also unjustified.

18. The allegation that the Plaintiff is a poor performer is unfounded as any project that the
Plaintiff could not complete or undertake was purely as a result of lack of funding to the
Defendant, a fact the Defendant is fully aware of and acknowledged.

19. If at all the Defendant had any reason to believe the Plaintiff was anything alleged, the
defendant has a well set out disciplinary process which it could have commenced against the
Plaintiff.

20. The Defendant however did not at any point charge the Plaintiff with any offence where the
Plaintiff was given a disciplinary hearing or an opportunity to be heard for that matter
contrary to clauses 7 and 8 of the Defendant’s Disciplinary Code and Grievance Procedure.

21. The Defendant instead gave good remarks during the Plaintiff’s appraisal and the contents of
the Defendant’s letter rejecting renewal of the Plaintiff’s contract were a total U-turn from the
appraisal and the Plaintiff’s performance in general,

22. The Plaintiff will aver at trial that the contents of the Defendant’s letter are highly defamatory
and have seriously lowered the Plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of the
road sector.

23. The Plaintiff will aver that the road development sector is a closely knit sector in the country
and as a result of the Defendant’s remarks, the Plaintiff has been unable to secure any
meaningful employment since the contract came to an end.

24. The Plaintiff will further aver at trial that he is fully aware of the discretion the Defendant has
not to renew an employee’s contract, however, the Defendant is not at liberty to defame any
employee in exercising its discretion.

25. The defendant has, by the contents of its letter, ruined the Plaintiff’s chances of finding
employment on the labour market because of the damage that has been occasioned to the
Plaintiff’s image and reputation considering the gravity of the allegations. The remarks given
by the Defendant have for all intents and purposes rendered the Plaintiff unemployable and
the Plaintiff’s believes that the said remarks were made in bad faith.

Particulars of Defamation
 26. Since the Defendant’s issuance of the letter, the Plaintiff has been unable to secure any
meaningful employment as prospective employers would get discouraged by the reason given
for the Defendant’s refusal to renew the Plaintiff’s contract.

27. Owing to the Defendant’s action, the Plaintiff’s professional career has significantly slowed,
the Plaintiff has been unable to renew his practicing licence and has been denied an
opportunity to rise to higher ranks in the sector.

Unfair Treatment

28. The Plaintiff will show that 3 months prior to the expiration of his contract he was sick and
was made to work on matters that he could have been delegated and demands for immediate
responses were issued by the Defendant in defiance of the Doctor’s recommendations, who
had put him on total rest from any kind of stress.

29. The Defendant would issue out instructions couched in such a manner that only the Plaintiff
could respond regardless of the fact that someone was appointed to act in the Plaintiff’s
position during his illness.

30. This conduct that the Defendant subjected the Plaintiff to has never been extended to any
other serving employee of the Defendant and is a complete and total disregard of the
Plaintiff’s health and contract.

31. The Defendant would further couch the said instructions in a manner that the Plaintiff was
required to respond immediately despite being in hospital thereby causing the Plaintiff more
distress and putting the Plaintiff in fear of not completing instructions. One such instruction
from the Defendant is a memo dated 3 May, 2016.

32. The Defendant completely disregarded the Plaintiff’s medical doctor’s advice and instructions
to be placed on bed rest and avoid any kind of stress. The Defendant portrayed unfair and
inhumane conduct by disregarding the fact that the Plaintiff was in poor health.

Breach of Contract

33. Further, it was a term of the Plaintiff’s contract that the selected members of the Plaintiff’s
family would be covered by a medical scheme provided by the Defendant, one such member
being the Plaintiff’s wife. This was covered in an internal memo dated 15 January, 2015
which clearly defines the benefits and limits of the entitlement.

34. In January and February, 2016, the Plaintiff’s wife was in need of medical attention and
required funds to undergo various medical tests recommended by her physician. The Plaintiff
brought this information to the Defendant but the Defendant refused and neglected to provide
the required funds to enable the Plaintiff’s wife undergo the required medical treatment in
total breach of the Plaintiff’s contract

35. In consequence, the Plaintiff’s reputation both personal and professional has been seriously
injured and he has suffered distress, embarrassment mental distress and anguish.

AND the Plaintiff Claims for:

1. A declaratory order that the non-renewal of the Plaintiff’s contracts of employment was
done in bad faith and from improper motives;

2. Damages for the defamatory statements contained in the Defendant’s letter;

3. Damages for breach of contract;

4. Damages for loss of legitimate expectation of remaining in employment;

5. Damages for unfair treatment arising from being made to work by the Defendant in
total disregard of medical advice;

6. Damages for loss of chances of finding employment;

7. Damages for hardships, pain mental distress and anguish;

8. Reinstatement;

9. Any other relief as Court may deem fit and just;

10. Costs.

Dated at Lusaka this…………………………................day of ……….…….……………………2019

Per: ………………………………………..
Charles Siamutwa Legal Practitioners
Plot No. 11, Saise Road
Longacres,
P.O Box 30440,
Lusaka
Advocates for the Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA 2017/HP/0352
AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
HOLDEN AT LUSAKA
(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:

STEVEN MWALE PLAINTIFF

AND

ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM- AMENDED WITH LEAVE OF COURT

Per: Messrs Charles Siamutwa Legal Practitioners

Plot No. 11, Saise Road
Longacres,
P.O Box 30440,
Lusaka
Advocates for the Plaintiff