REGISTER WITH PREMIERBET HERE AND GET LATEST BETTING ODDS HERE
By Dickson Jere
He joined the bank in 1981 and put in unbroken service of 17 years until he retired on voluntary separation in 1998. He was paid his benefits by the bank and went away.
However, in 2006 – eight years later – he discovered that his terminal benefits which were paid did not capture the allowances. He vehemently believed that allowances should have been included in the calculations based on the directive that was given by the Minister of Finance then.
GET LATEST NEWS FROM ZAMBIA AND ACROSS THE GLOBE BY VISITING WWW.ZEDGOSSIP.NET
He then filed his claim before the Lusaka High Court claiming among other things recalculation of his benefits. He partially succeeded. The High Court agreed with his reasoning and ordered that his benefits should be recalculated based on the bank conditions of service.
REGISTER WITH 1xBET HERE
Undeterred with the outcome, the bank climbed to the Court of Appeal insisting that the case was statute-barred and that benefits should not be recalculated to include allowances such as housing, furniture, water, electricity and fuel, among others.
The bank raised key points. One was that the former employee had brought his claim in Court very late – outside the mandatory six (6) years period for claims under contract. And that, in any case, he was paid his benefits in full.
The three-member panel of the Court of Appeal analysed the facts of the case and held thus;
“It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the time limitation on a simple contract or tort is 6 years,” the Judges observed, adding that the case at hand was filed 8 years later.
“Clearly, this falls outside the timeline as set out in the Limitation Act for a period of 6 years. It only stands to reason that the matter was therefore statute-barred,” the Judges ruled and dismissed the case on that technicality.
The Court explained that when the matter is filed outside the 6 years period, it means the Courts have no mandate (jurisdiction) to hear such cases even if they were filed in Court.
“The matter before us being statute barred made the proceedings on which it was founded to be incurably bad and could not be sustained,” the Judges said.
“In the view that we have, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter,” they concluded and indicated that it would be an academic exercise to even look at the merit of his case on terminal benefits.
The Panel indicated that even though the High Court had allowed the matter to be heard, the decision did not cure the proceedings.
“…the matter was Statute barred and therefore any decision flowing therefrom was a nullity,” the Court said.
Case citation – Zambia National Commercial Bank Plc v Hastings Phiri (Appeal No 69/2020). The Judges that determined the matter are Justices Flavia Chishimba, Betty Majula and Kelvin Muzenga.
This summary is not legal opinion on the subject of Limitation Act, which is very wide and has various exceptions to the general law. Kindly consult your lawyers for advice on the subject matter. For example, matters of land, the limitation is usually 12 years.
Students and those interested in this subject should read the Limitations Act of 1939 for details.
