The Supreme Court has referred back to the High Court the case in which Matero Member of Parliament Miles Sampa has asked to be heard as to whether he should be joined to the consent judgment passed by High Court Judge Mungeni Mulenga.
However, this has no bearing on Defence and Justice minister Edgar Lungu’s election as Patriotic Front (PF) president and cannot stop him from filing in his nomination on Saturday as presidential candidate for the January 20 2015 elections.
A full bench of seven Supreme Court judges has ruled that the High Court should hear the Mr Sampa and others who wish to be joined to the case.
Mr Sampa has been allowed to be joined to the case because he has a locus standi or sufficient interest as demonstrated by the consent judgment.
According to the ruling, Mr Sampa should have been allowed to be heard even when former PF secretary general Bridget Atanga was replaced by the incumbent Davies Chama.
In his argument, Mr Sampa stated that this was against rules of natural justice as he was not heard by the High Court before passing the consent judgment and had applied to be joined as an intervention to contest it and justify his position.
Mr Lungu’s lawyers however charged that Mr Sampa’s election was illegal because there was a court order against the conference at which the Matero lawmaker was elected PF party president.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court will today hear the case in which suspended MMD president Nevers Mumba has appealed against the Lusaka High Court ruling dismissing his application for an injunction restraining party national secretary Muhabi Lungu from interfering in his work.
The matter failed to take off yesterday because his lawyers were not availed heads of argument in good time.
Acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda who led a full team of Supreme Court judges, adjourned the matter to today after Mr Lungu’s lawyers Abud Shonga applied for it.
When the matter came up for ruling, Ms Justice Lombe Chisebakunda said she understood concerns raised by Dr Mumba’s lawyer Bonaventure Mutale over the delay and had no objections to the adjournment.
Earlier, Mr Mutale said the matter could not proceed as they were not given enough time to study the heads of argument.