CONSENT JUDGMENT- WHAT DOES IT MEAN? CAN IT BE OVERTURNED?APPEALED TO? The Consent Judgement cannot be overturned or appealed to. It can be overturned if a fresh action is commenced. In this case Miles Sampa has not commenced a fresh action. In addition, there is nothing in law that stops two consenting parties, to save the courts time, agree on the facts in dispute and sign a Consent Order. The Court can reject such an order if it wishes. There is always a difference between representative actions and personal actions. In this case, Bridget Attanga was not sued in her personal act but in a representative capacity as Secretary General. When Attanga was fired by President Edgar Lungu, she could no longer represent the Patriotic Front. The law is that when a party loses interest in the matter, or the facts change, or loses the Locus Standi, the law states that under Order 16, Cap 27, which is the High Court, the cause of action will be defective unless the parties are altered. In this case, President Lungu having appointed Davies Chama as Secretary General of the Patriotic Front, Davies Chama became the legal representative of the PF and therefore had to replace the dismissed Bridget Attanga. What this meant was that the new Secretary General could enter into discussion, negotiation and agree with the plaintiff (Inonge Wina). There is nothing illegal or sinister in the conduct of Davies Chama as the new Secretary General and signing as he did this consent order. The uphill battle Miles Sampa and his lawyers have is that, with impunity, disregarded a court order, embarrassed the court and the Judiciary by ignoring a lawful order and exhibited lawlessness. He now wants an opportunity to be respected and heard before the court he acted contemptuously. He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands. Miles Sampas hands and that of his superiors, are dirty by acting like he is above the law. Meanwhile, the PF lawyers have filed contempt charges and have preferred against Sylvia Masebo, Bridget Attanga, Anthony Kasolo, Daniel Munkombwe, Miles Sampa and Germano Kaulongombe and his fellow commissioners. the above are sued for disregarding an Injunction order that was issued by the Lusaka High Court. From the public statement given by Kaulongombe, demonstrates that the five, deliberately, and wilfully, disregarded the court order. This matter is no longer a matter between the plaintiff and the defendants. Its a criminal matter between the court and the alleged five that disregarded the court.The reason, the courts guard jealously their jurisdiction, power and authority. There is a principal law, one a court order has been issued, it must be obeyed no matter how unfair it might appear to be. In this case Miles Sampa, had an opportunity to join himself to the court action before it was concluded by the Judge. In this regard, Hon. Miles Sampa should have applied to stay or discharge the interim injunction before proceeding with any other act of disobedience. This he did not do. In equity, when a party who is likely to be affected by the cause of action, directly and indirectly sleeps on his rights and doesnt defend himself or protects, the law assumes that such a party has consented to any resultant injury that may follow. When the injunction was issued, and brought to the attention of the five people, it became clear that the injunction was going injure or deny Hon. Sampa from enjoying his rights of participating in the party elections. Hon. Sampa did nothing. he broke two equitable principles one who comes to equity, must come quickly and one who comes to equity must come with clean hand. In this case, he is coming with dirty hands and having joined himself to the matter, Hon. Sampa lost his equitable locus standi. Hetherefore cannot be seen or be heard to complain against the consent judgement, when he clearly slept on his rights.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 04:10:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015