Arthur Lubinda Wina, Frederick Titus Jacob Chiluba ,Veron Johnson Mwaanga and Others v The Attorney –General (1990-1992) Z.R 95 (H.C).

Lindiwe.K.Chinyanta v Doreen.C.Tembo SCZ Judgment No.28 of 2007

The Issues for determination in this matter were; (i)Does the surviving spouse have a prior eligibility to be appointed as administrator over the deceased‘s relatives? ; (ii)Whether the surviving spouse should be informed and consulted before the appointed of the administrator?

Sithole v Sithole 1969 Z.R 92 (High-Court Judgment)

The issues for determination in this Divorce Case before the High-Court of the Republic of Zambia were as follows ; (i) Which ceremony between the Customary Marriage or the Stautory Marriage created the marriage ?; (ii) Did the Marriage Ordiance Act Allow for a conversion of a vaild potentially polygamous marriage to a valid monogamous marriage? , and (ii) Did the High-Court have jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Cause Rules 1968 to entertain the said Petition and adjudicate the said matter?

Arthur Lubinda Wina, Frederick Titus Jacob Chiluba ,Veron Johnson Mwaanga and Others v The Attorney –General (1990-1992) Z.R 95 (H.C).

Law Issue in this case. This was a Constitutional matter before the High Court that was tasked with determining whether or not the President of the Republic of Zambia has the legitimate authority/power to issue directives to limit access to the usage of Public Owned Media Houses by opposition political parties. Brief Background to matter. The President of the Republic of Zambia in 1990, The late Dr. Kenneth David Kunda had, at a news conference, issued a directive that certain government owned newspapers were not to provide coverage to or accept advertisements from the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (“MMD”), the main opposition political party at the time. The petitioners as a result of the said decision by the then President did herein apply to the High Court for on order quashing and setting aside the directive given by the President limiting access to Government owned media houses to the opposition, as it was the petitioners view that the said directive violated their rights in terms of article 22 and 25 of the Constitution of Zambia,1991. Kindly note that at 10:23 of this episode, the Host does make mention that the Constitutional Court has been given authority to adjudicate on Constitutional violation. Please be informed that the correct Constitutional provision is Article 128 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment No.2 of 2016) .

Patrick Sakala vs The People (1980) Z.R.205 (S.C)

This case deals with conviction of an accused person on purely indirect evidence (Circumstantial Evidence) without any eye witness present at the scene of the crime . The Brief facts of this Appeal Case before the Supreme Court of Zambia is that Patrick Sakala was convicted for the offence of murder pursuant to Section 200 of the Penal Code. Patrick Sakala had murdered a four year old boy after the boy's mother had refused the advancement made by Patrick Sakala. The issue for determination was whether or not Patrick Sakala had actually killed the boy keeping in mind that the were no eye witness or actual medical report submitted and other circumstances that may have caused the death had not been ruled out .

The Long-Awaited Return.

The episode explains the changes that have been implemented so as to deliver a better podcast for the various listeners. In addition, this episode provides the listeners with an insight of the new addition features and changes that been applied to the podcast. If you have a case you would to be featured on the podcast ,get in touch with me through the details listed below. Email: georgemalipilo23@gmail.com [georgemalipilo23@gmail.com] Facebook Messenger: George Chintankwa Malipilo . Thankyou very much for taking the time to listen to the podcast.