0% found this document useful (0 votes)
6 views15 pagesZam 59 1996
The Supreme Court case SCZ Appeal No. 59 of 1996 involves an appeal by Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Limited against a lower court ruling that found the bank violated the Zambian Constitution and Employment Act by failing to obtain employee consent during a transfer of obligations to Finance Bank. The court examined whether the appellant complied with statutory requirements and whether the employees' rights were upheld during the corporate restructuring. The judgment discusses the legal implications of the transfer and the necessity of adhering to both the Banking and Financial Services Act and the Employment Act.
Uploaded by
knthangaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
6 views15 pagesZam 59 1996
The Supreme Court case SCZ Appeal No. 59 of 1996 involves an appeal by Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Limited against a lower court ruling that found the bank violated the Zambian Constitution and Employment Act by failing to obtain employee consent during a transfer of obligations to Finance Bank. The court examined whether the appellant complied with statutory requirements and whether the employees' rights were upheld during the corporate restructuring. The judgment discusses the legal implications of the transfer and the necessity of adhering to both the Banking and Financial Services Act and the Employment Act.
Uploaded by
knthangaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 15
HW THE SUPREME COURT OF Z
oe “
SCZ Appeal Ho. 59 oF 1996
{Civil Jurisdiction)
Coram:
For the Appellant
For the Respondent :
i
STANOARD CHARTERED BANK ZAMBIA LIMITED Appel lant,
and
“PETER ZULU AND 118 OTHERS Respondent
Chaila, Muzyamba and Lewanika JJ.S.
2ist November, 1996 and ith November, 1997
Messrs. N.K. Mubonda and 6.K. Chisanga of D.H. Kemp & Co.
tir, WAL Mubanga of Permanent Chambers, Luseka
. QUDGMENT
Kitching vs Ward and Taylar (1967) 17RS6a
(4966) ITRI6a
Shakespeare vs. C.L. Blyindell
Pambakian vs Brentford Nyolons Limited (1968) [CRE65
sues are:- thet the lower
In this appeal the main
in concluding that the eppellant contravened the
Constitution of Zambia; Hao
an epreement with the Finance Bank zo cine over some obligations
and jiabiiities. of 'the appellant bank. The appellant attempred
exercise was abandoned
to. get consents from employees but th
when thie matter went to court. The Yower court considered the
facts and documents and evidence placed before 1t and concluded
thet the eppellant had not complied with the provisions of the
vitution in that it ignored
from the
ondents when the appellant company cransferred its branches
to finance Bank. The lower court rvled that the eppellant was
te compel the respondents to wark for Finance Bank by
2 Comciuded that thet practice violated the
Zambig and Interaec:anal Labour Conventiprs
which the Zembian “Gaveranent’ eisrMbapieg A ie corre” order.
cy feeKaee | (b) pension
Te) patriavion fees and (d) leave bersfits.
“Twasses Mubonda and Chisange fer the appellant advanced
four grounds of appeal. We will dee! witn these grounds in
the manner in which they were arqued. “he first ground was thet
there was nO evidence on record to support the Jower court's
finding that Article 44 (2) was not comPlied with. Mr. Mudonde
argued thet there was no evidence at all on record to lend
support tS the finding by the learnez trial court that this
transaction was in contravention of Article 14 (2) of the
tution of Zambia, This transaccion, the counsel argued
col
wes effected in accordance with Sections 26 (2) end 29 (2) (c)
of the Banking and Financial Services ‘ct (Act No. 2% of 1994).
Tne counsel submitted that in