Supreme Court has dismissed with costs Greyford Monde’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to restrain the UPND from expelling him as Itezhi-tezhi member of parliament for lack of merit.
The UPND, on February 22, 2013, expelled Monde and informed the Speaker of the expulsion.
Monde then instituted court proceedings against the UPND and applied for an injunction which was dismissed on March 26, 2013.
Judge Evans Hamaundu had ruled that he could not grant Monde an injunction because he was already expelled.
But Monde appealed and argued that the High Court was wrong in law when it applied its mind to the merits of the case and not the application for injunction that was before it when it refused to grant him the injunction.
The UPND, however, submitted that the High Court was not wrong in refusing to grant Monde the injunction he was seeking because the lawmaker no longer believed in the ideals of the party.
In a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court bench of justices Marvin Mwanamwambwa, Hildah Chibomba, Gregory Phiri, Muyinda Wanki, Albert Wood and Roydah Kaoma, the court dismissed Monde’s appeal with costs because it lacked merit.
The Supreme Court cited the case of Timothy Kafa Nyirenda V Tilyenji Kaunda who sought an injunction to restrain the UNIP from expelling and notifying the Speaker of the National Assembly of the expulsion.
The Supreme Court stated that judge Mwanamwambwa, who presided over the matter as Lusaka High Court judge then, dismissed Nyirenda’s application on grounds that there was nothing to restrain because he was already expelled and the Speaker was notified.
The court further stated that Nyirenda then appealed to the Supreme Court against judge Mwanamwambwa’s decision but the higher court upheld it.
The Supreme Court stated that in its view, the two events that Monde wanted to restrain the party from doing had already happened.
“So, as at March 26, 2013, there was nothing to restrain. And as of now, there is nothing to restrain. On the principles stated above, a restrictive injunction should not be issued to restrain an event or events that have already happened,” stated the Supreme Court.
“For the reasons we have given above, we hereby exercise our discretion by refusing to issue a restrictive injunction. We dismiss this appeal for lack of merit. We award costs to the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.”