My Two Cents: A Zambian Case Law Podcast

The Issues for determination in this matter were;
(i)Does the surviving spouse have a prior eligibility to be appointed as administrator over the deceased‘s relatives? ;

(ii)Whether the surviving spouse should be informed and consulted before the appointed of the administrator?

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

The issues for determination in this Divorce Case before the High-Court of the Republic of Zambia were as follows ;
(i) Which ceremony between the Customary Marriage or the Stautory Marriage created the marriage ?;
(ii) Did the Marriage Ordiance Act Allow for a conversion of a vaild potentially polygamous marriage to a valid monogamous marriage? , and
(ii) Did the High-Court have jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Cause Rules 1968 to entertain the said Petition and adjudicate the said matter?

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

Law Issue in this case.

This was a Constitutional matter before the High Court that was tasked with determining whether or not the President of the Republic of Zambia has the legitimate authority/power to issue directives to limit access to the usage of Public Owned Media Houses by opposition political parties.

Brief Background to matter.

The President of the Republic of Zambia in 1990, The late Dr. Kenneth David Kunda had, at a news conference, issued a directive that certain government owned newspapers were not to provide coverage to or accept advertisements from the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (“MMD”), the main opposition political party at the time.

The petitioners as a result of the said decision by the then President did herein apply to the High Court for on order quashing and setting aside the directive given by the President limiting access to Government owned media houses to the opposition, as it was the petitioners view that the said directive violated their rights in terms of article 22 and 25 of the Constitution of Zambia,1991.

Kindly note that at 10:23 of this episode, the Host does make mention that the Constitutional Court has been given authority to adjudicate on Constitutional violation. Please be informed that the correct Constitutional provision is Article 128 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment No.2 of 2016) .

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

This case deals with conviction of an accused person on purely indirect evidence (Circumstantial Evidence) without any eye witness present at the scene of the crime .

The Brief facts of this Appeal Case before the Supreme Court of Zambia is that Patrick Sakala was convicted for the offence of murder pursuant to Section 200 of the Penal Code. Patrick Sakala had murdered a four year old boy after the boy's mother had refused the advancement made by Patrick Sakala.

The issue for determination was whether or not Patrick Sakala had actually killed the boy keeping in mind that the were no eye witness or actual medical report submitted and other circumstances that may have caused the death had not been ruled out .

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

The episode explains the changes that have been implemented so as to deliver a better podcast for the various listeners. In addition, this episode provides the listeners with an insight of the new addition features and changes that been applied to the podcast.

If you have a case you would to be featured on the podcast ,get in touch with me through the details listed below.

Email: [email protected]
Facebook Messenger: George Chintankwa Malipilo .
Thankyou very much for taking the time to listen to the podcast.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

This is a conclusion episode concerning the case of Fredrick .M.Kunda . This episode gives a deeper analysis of why the Supreme Court of Zambia reversed the Judgement of the Subordinate Court, which relied on a specific Criminal provision of the Law that was now repealed and not enforceable .

The episode also talks about Section 122 of the Juveniles Act,Chapter 53 of the Laws of Zambia and how a Child will be treated as a witness and the criminal law procedural that ought to be followed by the trial court in such cases .

Music by Bensound .

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

This is an Appeal from the Judgement of the Subordinate Court (Herein also known as the Magistrate Court) in which it found the Appellant guilty of the offence of defilement of a 7 year old Children .

The High Court For Zambia which passed sentencing due to the limitation power of the Magistrate, give the offender, 25 Years imprisonment with Hard Labour .

The Appellant now brought his matter before the Supreme Court of Zambia in a bid to overturn his conviction on the basis of inter alia (Among other thing) that the manner in how the Magistrate received was not correct as the voire dire was defective .

Music by Bensound.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

The Respondent in the Supreme Court of.Zambia ("Hill and Delamain Zambia Limited") had taken out Court Process ( Writ of Summons + Statement of Claim) to recover monies owed for services rendered at the instance and request of the Appellant in the Supreme Court of Zambia ("Associated Chemiclas Limited") .

The Crux of the Appellant's argument in the Supreme Court of Zambia was that due to a clause in the Shareholder Purchase Agreement (Associated Chemicals Limited) , The old shareholders(Two Patels) and no either the Company nor thr new shareholder (Mr Kilasa) were liable for this debt owed to the Respondent as the Agreement had an indemnify clause that stated the previous Shareholders would undertake to settle financial liabilities incurred prior to the sale of the Share.

This case therefore looked into the principals relating to the Legal Status of a Company and the difference between a Shareholder and a Company .
This is also a Landmark Judgement on Company Law in Zambia and is still good Law .

Music by BensSound .

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

This was an appeal from the Judgement of the High Court for Zambia that the Plaintiff having defaulted on the Loan agreement between itself and the Defendant . The Plaintiff therefore owed an outstanding amount of ZMW 36,642.71 and that the Defendant was within it's Contractual lane when it sold the Truck that had been placed as security for a Loan argreement of ZMW 45,000.00.

According to the brief facts , Angel Musonda (The Appellant) had entered into a Loan argeement with Pulse Finance Services Limited (The Respondent) and had agreed to pay back the money in a period of 36 months .However, The Appellant seriously defaulted on her loan agreement and the Respondent seized the Truck and sold it for ZMW 20,000.00 so it could cover it's money . The Respondent got ZMW 17,000.00

The Appellant brought this matter to Court on the premise that it's was illegal for the Respondent to have sold the Truck as a result this lead to damages to the Appellant's business life , Angel Musonda therefore want the Court to order the Respondent to pay him damages to this effect .

Music by Bensound ..

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.

The main argument in this Intellectual Property dispute was;

whether or not a proprietor of unregistered Trademark , can prevent another person or company from registering that trademark .

Music by "BenSound"

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/my-two-cents-a-zambian-case-law-podcast--4068826/support.