2018 Zmca 395
2018 Zmca 395
2018 Zmca 395
HOLDEN AT LUSAKA
(CIVIL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN: ^RTOFAPpgj"
and Company
For the 2nd and 3rd Respondent G. Pindani, Messrs Chonta Musaila and
Pindani Advocates
JUDGMENT
Cases Referred:
for possession of the said land and to evict the servants, agents
and whoever from the land under title deed number 262432/M.
The appellant further sought damages for trespass by the 2nd and
appellant’s claims for want of merit. The court granted the 3rd
before this court and advanced the four grounds of appeal which
1. The learned trial Judge erred in fact and law when she held
below.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in fact and law when she
surveyed to date, the reason for non survey being that the
survey.
respondent.
4. The Judge erred in law and fact by stating that the Plaintiff
Learned trial Judge should have considered the fact that there
submitted that, the appellant proved at the trial that, the letter of
offer was for a 14 year period while the certificate of title was for
was argued that, the 2nd and 3rd respondent gave conflicting
while the 2nd respondent stated that she sold the land to a Mr
Chanda who took documents to her home for her to sign, which
highlighted above.
him that Lot 22388/M was created on top of the already existing
Lot 19063/M. Counsel submitted that, the appellant did his part
by paying for the survey and that it was the responsibility of the
contended that the learned trial Judge did not look at these
J6
Judge.
Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that, it is trite law that
ground when it held that the owner of the certificate of title for
the appellant’s piece of land has not been surveyed to date as the
pages 256 and 257 of the record of appeal confirm that, the
Council vs. William N ;uni2 where the Supreme Court held inter
alia that -
Judgment. ”
that the court dismisses the appeal for lack of merit with costs.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed written
court.
J8
evidenced by the letter of offer. The court further found that, this
13th September, 2006. The court also found that, Lot 19063/M
was created in 2004 as per site plan dated 6th October, 2004.
to be dismissed.
of title and that the learned trial Judge gave reasons why she did
offer that was issued to the 2nd respondent, bore an official date
stamp and referred the court to pages 322 and 323 of the record
J9
that the certificate of title issued to the 3rd respondent shows that
negligence as it was not pleaded in the lower court and did not
It was submitted that, the appellant failed to prove that the 3rd
It was submitted that, the 2nd and 3rd respondents followed the
Lot/19063/M.
submitted that the survey was not done because the appellant
that it be dismissed.
fails and urged the court to dismiss this appeal in its entirety for
also rely on the heads of argument filed on the 26th April, 2018.
land in dispute.
Judge erred in fact and law when she held that the 3rd
title for Lot/22388/M. The appellant argued that there were a lot
The court found as a fact that the appellant did not hold any
that the learned trial Judge’s findings of fact were not perverse
does not have a certificate of title and his piece of land was not
accordingly dismissed.
found that the appellant’s land was not surveyed and overlapped
Having dismissed grounds one, two and three for lack of merit,
" J. CHASHI
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE