Summary of the Ruling: Miles Sampa v. The Attorney General (2024/CCZ/0024)
Background
Miles Bwalya Sampa, the petitioner, filed a constitutional petition against the Attorney General of Zambia concerning the alleged contravention of Article 210 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016. The petition relates to the transaction involving Mopani Copper Mines (MCM) and International Resources Holdings (IRH).
The Attorney General, as the respondent, was required to file an Answer and Opposing Affidavit by 2nd January 2025. However, instead of doing so, the respondent filed a summons seeking an extension of time to submit these documents, citing that the intended deponent was out of Lusaka on national duties.
Key Issues Considered by the Court
- Application for Extension of Time
- The Attorney General’s office applied for more time to file their response.
- The petitioner did not oppose this application.
- Court’s Consideration and Decision on the Application
- The Court granted the extension, allowing the respondent to file the required documents by 17th January 2025.
- The petitioner was given until 24th January 2025 to reply.
- Criticism of the Respondent’s Conduct
- Justice Mwandenga expressed disappointment with the respondent’s explanation for failing to meet the original deadline.
- The affidavit supporting the extension lacked key details, such as who the intended deponent was, where they were, and how long they would be absent.
- The Court suspected the affidavit was drafted to create an impression of urgency without sufficient supporting facts.
- Warning Against Delays
- The Court emphasized that such a laissez-faire attitude towards court proceedings could lead to unnecessary delays, which would contradict Article 118(2)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that “justice shall not be delayed.”
- Both parties were warned that the Court would not tolerate further delays in the case.
Ruling and Conclusion
- The Court granted the respondent’s application for an extension but criticized the reasons provided.
- The case proceedings were rescheduled with strict deadlines to prevent further delays.
- The Court forewarned both parties that it would not entertain future laxity or unwarranted extensions.
Key Takeaways
- The Court prioritizes timely justice and expects compliance with deadlines.
- Parties must provide clear, factual justifications when requesting extensions.
- The Constitutional Court is willing to grant extensions only when necessary and justified.
