Edgar Lungu’s Arrival In Mansa
Lusaka High Court judge Mungeni Mulenga says lawyers representing Miles Sampa and his colleagues who questioned a consent judgment in which she declared Edgar Lungu as PF president are just wasting her time by raising misconceived and hopeless applications.
But ex-justice minister Sebastian Zulu, who is representing Sampa and two others, has insisted that judge Mulenga was wrong at law to have dismissed the application to join them to the consent judgment matter before hearing them.
This is in a matter where Sampa, who was elected as PF president during the party’s second general conference in Kabwe last week, Kasama PF member of parliament Geoffrey Mwamba and Captain Seleman Banda Phangula, applied to be joined to judge Mulenga’s consent judgment matter as interveners. The trio sued PF national chairperson Inonge Wina and recently appointed secretary general Davies Chama, upon whose ‘action’ judge Mulenga granted the consent judgment last Wednesday. Judge Mulenga in her ruling delivered last Friday said inasmuch as the application to be joined to the proceedings was made inter-partes, she would summarily determine it on her own motion considering that it appeared misconceived. “I note that it is meant to waste the court’s time,” she said. “A party can only be joined to proceedings at or before the hearing or determination of a suit.
In this case, the intended interveners are aware that this matter was finally determined by the execution of the consent judgment on 3rd December 2014.” Judge Mulenga said such an application could not be entertained at that stage because Sampa and the others wanted to re-open a matter that had already been settled by her consent judgment.
“The intended interveners were also fully aware of the proceedings and chose not to join or make this application at the appropriate time before the matter was fully determined,” said judge Mulenga. “This application is therefore incompetent at this stage and is dismissed on lacking merit. Counsels owe a duty to the court to advise their clients appropriately as they know the implications of a consent judgment and the proper mode for challenging the same instead of making hopeless and vexatious applications.” But Sampa and the others, through Zulu, have wholesomely challenged judge Mulenga’s holding before the Supreme Court.
“The learned trial judge misdirected herself by holding that the intended interveners, herein the appellants, are incompetent to apply to be added as defendants and may not re-open the matter which was fully determined by the consent judgment and that the application is dismissed as lacking merit,” Zulu’s memorandum of appeal read.
“The learned trial judge was wrong at law by dismissing the application by the appellants to be added as defendants in their absence and without giving them an opportunity to be heard.” They submitted that judge Mulenga also misdirected herself when she held that she had inherent jurisdiction not to hear the parties on inter-partes application, which she decided had no merit and was meant to waste the court’s time.
Zulu is today expected to file in the Supreme Court the record of appeal and heads of argument pending determination of the matter.