THE Supreme Court of Zambia has upheld the Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision to de-register the Miles Sampa-led Democratic Front (DF) party.
Supreme Court Justice Rhoyda Kaoma delivering her ruling yesterday and said she could not find merit in the application to stay a High Court Ruling that refused to grant an application for judicial review which would have acted as a stay of the Government’s decision to de-register the DF from the Registrar of Society’s list of political parties in Zambia.
Justice Kaoma said even if the High Court could have suggested that there were issues to be further investigated at a substantive hearing, the leave was discharged on the grounds that the applicant had no locus standi.
“No stay of execution can be granted because there is nothing to be stayed following the discharge of leave to apply for judicial review on which the stay of the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs to cancel the registration of the DF party was premised.
“I do not even need to consider the prospects of success of the proposed appeal. In conclusion, I find no merit in the application and dismiss it accordingly,” she said.
Morgan Ng’ona, purportedly the secretary general of DF, sued the Attorney General over the cancellation of the registration certificate of the supposed opposition political party after Minister of Home Affairs, Davis Mwila declared that there was no documentation to support its existence at the office of the Registrar of Societies.
Mr Ng’ona applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of execution of the High Court ruling in which Justice Mulongoti declared that DF remained de-registered as decided by the minister.
Ms Justice Mulongoti said Mr Ng’ona had no locus standi to apply for judicial review because he was not among the office bearers as indicated at the Registrar of Societies.
Justice Mulongoti said she was in agreement with the arguments by the Solicitor General who explained that no stay of execution could be granted because there was nothing to be stayed.
She said a stay of execution referred to the suspension of the operations of judgment or order, which meant that there should be a judgment or order of court capable of being enforced to the detriment of the applicant and or the applicant’s intended appeal.
Justice Kaoma said where such judgment or order of the court was devoid of anything worth enforcing, there could be no stay of execution.
“However, in the event that leave to apply for judicial review is discharged, the stay falls away with the discharge of the leave,” she explained.