High court rejects petition to review decision in MMD case

LUSAKA High Court Judge Wilfred Muma, has declined to review his decision to dismiss a petition in which Mkaika constituency Member of Parliament (MP) Peter Phiri, was challenging his expulsion from opposition party, MMD.

Mr Justice Muma said he could not review his decision to dismiss Mr Phiri 's petition on grounds that it was not signed and that the petitioner neglected to present any fresh evidence or sufficient grounds before him that would compel the Court to review its decision.

Mr Phiri, Muma Kabanda, MP for Serenje Central and Muchinga MP Howard Kunda had separately filed their petitions in the Lusaka High Court and cited Ms Elizabeth Chitika as the respondent on behalf of MMD.

The Mkaika lawmaker like two others was seeking similar declarations among them that his purported expulsions by the party dated August 18, 2020 was ultra vires Articles 1(3), 2, 11, 20 and 21 of the constitution of Zambian as amended by Act no 2 of 2016 , therefore, void and of no legal effect.

A declaration that any purported suspension of the petitioner which violated the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution be declared null and void ab nitio.

The three also wanted a declaration that the purported expulsion from the party was illegal, by reasons of procedural impropriety and

absolute defiance of the established rules of natural justice.

But Ms Chitika asked the Court to consolidate the three petitions involving all the three expelled MMD MPs.

Ms Chitika stated that her application was a fit and proper case for Court to grant an order to consolidate the action with the matters in cause 2020/ HP/0969 and 2020/HP/0968 adding that the refusal by the court to consolidate the petitions would be prejudicial to the parties.

Mr Justice Muma, granted the application by Ms Chitika and consolidated the petitions.

However, in November 2020, Mr Justice Muma dismissed the petition involving Mr Phiri on grounds that it was not signed and was therefore irregularly before him.

But on December 3, 2020, Mr Phiri filed an affidavit in support of ex parte summons asking the Court to review its decision to dismiss the petition.

The petitioner admitted that

he had inadvertently neglected or omitted to sign one copy of the petition and that the same was erroneously filed into court and placed on the court record.

"That the irregularity noted by this honourable Court in its order of the 19th November, 2020 was merely an innocent omission on my part as I signed all the other copies of the petition prior to filing into court on 27th September, 2020,' he stated.

In his ruling , Mr Justice Muma said the High Court Act was very clear that it required the plaintiff or their advocate to sign a writ or summons before it was presented before the court.

“It is therefore of no bearing to this Court that the other copies of the petition were signed. The mere fact that the petitioners alleged that he signed other copies of the petition does not stand out as material or fresh evidence. It still remains that the petitioner presented a petition that was irregular before me,” he said.