The effects of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) on zooplankton community structure in Depot Pond NH and a comparison of seven New Hampshire lakes

Physical, chemical and biological features of seven New Hampshire lakes were examined in September and October of 1997. Zooplankton communities exhibited evidence of “top-down” control in Milton Three Ponds (Depot, Norteast, and Townhouse Ponds), showing effects of a planktivorous fish, Alosa pseudoharengus: small mean body size, dominance of small grazers such as Bosmina, and absence of large grazers such as Daphnia. Phosphorus concentrations were positively correlated to fluorescence of all water fractions, chlorophyll a and a phytoplankton biotic pollution index (modified from Hillsenhoff, 1978), revealing a level of “bottom-up” control

The People v The Patents and Companies Registration Agency Ex-Partes Finsbury Investment Limited and Zambezi Portland Cement Limited 2017/CCZ/R003 Selected Judgment No. 28 of 2018

The dispute related to how to commence judicial review proceedings in Zambia. The applicant in this matter commenced judicial review proceedings in the High Court of Zambia by way of applying for leave. In between the period after the High Court granted leave to hear the merits of the judicial review and the hearing date, the Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA), the Respondent filed an application to discharge the leave granted. It was at this point that the Applicants filed summons, to have the matter referred to the Constitutional Court to determine whether or not the requirement for leave is consistent with Article 118(2)(e) of the Constitution, which came into force in 2016, which provides that justice in all courts of law shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. On the one hand, the applicant in this matter contended that whereas Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England, which regulate judicial review proceedings, provided for the need for leave before commencing judicial review, this requirement is no longer consistent with the aforesaid constitutional provision. It was contended that the requirement for leave is a procedural technicality that hinders access to justice and hence should no longer be required. The Applicants also argued that the requirement for leave should only survive under the new constitutional dispensation if the requirement was backed up by a specific statute, like it is in England or Kenya. In the absence of a specific statute requiring leave in Zambia, the Applicants opined that this further underscored the view that there is no need for leave of court. The Applicants further argued that even if leave is still necessary, the other party cannot apply to discharge the leave because this too would be contrary to Article 118(2)(e) of the Constitution. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the requirement to institute judicial review by way of obtaining leave of court is a substantive legal requirement. Therefore, even though Article 118(2)(e) provided that procedures should not impede a matter being heard on its merits, the requirement for leave cannot be dispensed with because this requirement relates to substantive law, not procedure

Evaluating the management of non-formal education programmes run by non-governmental organisations in Kitwe, Zambia

The last decade has seen a shift in the discourse on the role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the education sector in Africa including Zambia. The discourse is no longer ‘what’ role should NGOs play, but ‘how’ NGOs could play an effective role in the education sector so that they can equally be held accountable to the beneficiaries and partners who support their work (Granvaux, et la, 2002:1). According to Jamies (2010:1), NGOs have assumed a big role in education, particularly the provision of non-formal education to the youths and adults. In the field of evaluation, non-formal education has received much attention, but little attention has been paid to management of non-formal education programmes run by NGOs. This study is an attempt to evaluate the management of non-formal education programmes, taking the case of NGOs engaged in non-formal education in the City of Kitwe, Zambia. Mulwa (2008:45) observes that evaluation has gained much influence in projects and organisations since the end of World War Two. This is because people, organisations and governments want to have evidence of the causes and effects of what is working or not working in policies and programmes.Adult Basic Education (ABET)M. Ed. (Specialisation in Adult Education

Moving Unit Video Television (t/a Muvi Tv Limited) v. Francis Mwiinga Maingaila SCZ Selected Judgment No. 18 of 2019

This case dealt with an employee of Muvi TV Limited who was accused of defiling an under-age girl whom he had had offered accommodation to. He was videoed being arrested by a police officer and the news read as follows “Journalist defiled a 13-year old girl”. This news story was repeated on several subsequent news broadcasts by Muvi TV. This story was published before any conviction was made in criminal proceedings. A medical report revealed that the girl had not been defiled and this was available before the story was released. However, despite the medical report being available, before the news, Muvi TV chose not to disclose this the result He was subsequently acquitted but pursued a claim for defamation. The Supreme Court confirmed that the basic test that is employed in establishing whether a statement is defamatory or not is that of examining how an ordinary, right-thinking person of the society generally would respond to the statement, in this case, an ordinary reasonable TV viewer in Zambia. Based on the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed that the publication as understood by the ordinary right-thinking TV viewer and listener were defamatory of the employee, on that they cast aspersions of his character, lowered him in the estimation of ordinary right-thinking persons in society generally, particularly given that he had not been convicted, yet or at all but created the impression that he had been or the police had cogent evidence against him. The defence of truth or justification which negates a finding of defamation was rejected because Muvi TV knew the truth as revealed by the medical report but still run an untrue story that defamed their employee’s character. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Malila JS (as he was then) guided that the fact that Muvi TV failed to get the employee an opportunity to give his side of the story or reveal the results of the medical examination pointed adversely to their motive to act malicious towards their employee. This coupled with the filming of the video was targeted towards embarrassing him. On this basis, Muvi TV could not claim the defence of truth or justification

Kenny Sililo v. Mend-A-Bath Zambia Limited and Spencon Zambia Limited SCZ Appeal No. 168/2014

The employer and employee had entered a written contract of employment. However, during the employment, a statutory instrument made pursuant to the Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment Act came into effect. As a result of this statutory instrument, certain minimum wages were prescribed for protected employees, of which the employee in question was one. The employer thereafter offered him a reduced salary as his current salary was above that prescribed by the statutory instrument. The employee complained about the employer’s conduct and declined the offer, as he considered it to be a unilateral alteration of his conditions of service. He was subsequently dismissed. The Supreme Court was categorical that the legislation is not intended to pull down an employee’s terms and conditions which are higher than those provided for in the Ministerial Orders. The Supreme Court confirmed that basic and minimum wages and conditions of employment that are provided for are intended to set the basic minimum for contracts of employment. For protected employees, the conditions of service in the Ministerial Orders apply in the absence of express agreement between the parties. These are terms which are deemed by the court to be present in the contract of employment because they concern employment rights that are created by the Employment Code Act or other relevant statutes

Frida Kabaso (Sued as Country Director of Voluntary Services Overseas Zambia) v. Davies Tembo SCZ Appeal No. 04/2012

This action concerned an appeal from the Industrial Relations Court where an employee was employed on a permanent contract by Voluntary Services Overseas Zambia as an Administrative Officer on 11th July 1996. He was later promoted to the position of Officer Manager. In 2001/2002, the employer changed its employment policy from employing staff on permanent terms to employing them on fixed-term contract. By 2008, the employer begun restructuring and informed employees. The employee’s position of Officer Manager was phased out and removed from the employer’s organisational structure, with two positions created, including that of Finance Manager. The employee claimed a redundancy package as he considered himself redundant. The employer declined to give him the redundancy package but offered him the position of Finance Manager in the restructured entity. The employee was initially reluctant to take up the position as he felt he was not qualified for the position, and he feared that the employer would use any poor performance on his part to dismiss him at a later stage. Despite his concerns, he accepted the new position. He was subsequently subject to various disciplinary issues and resigned. He commenced an action claiming a redundancy package, calculated at three (3) months’ pay for each year worked. The Industrial Relations Court held that while there cannot be a redundancy where an employee is offered alternative employment, in this case the employee was not offered suitable alternative employment and only took up the position due to his employer’s coercion. The court ordered the payment of a redundancy package but declined to award damages for mental distress and anguish. The Supreme Court confirmed that the provisions on redundancy and the (now repealed) Employment Act situated in section 26B do not apply to employees on written contracts. The court guided that for those on written contracts, redundancy only applied if the contract provided, which it did in this case. The fact that the Industrial Relations Court did not consider the provision on redundancy in the contract was a misdirection, according to the Supreme Court

Madison Investment, Property and Advisory Company Limited v. Peter Kanyinji SCZ Selected Judgment No. 48 of 2018

The Managing Director of Perfect Milling Company was entitled to 25% gratuity of his basic salary at the end of his term as Managing director. However, when he launched a claim against Perfect Milling Company, the company was in bankruptcy and unable to pay. He then sued Madison Investment, claiming that they operated as a single economic unit under the Madison Group of Companies. The High Court in a judgment delivered by Banda-Bobo J (as she was then) held that notwithstanding the principle that companies have a separate legal identity, the court is empowered to pierce it in certain circumstances to deduce who the actual owners are and attach liability to them in certain circumstances. In this case, the court held that Madison Investment had taken over the affairs of Perfect Milling and that they operated as one economic unit, for these reasons, Madison Investment was liable to pay the Managing Director his gratuity. On appeal, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment and lucidly provided an overview of the law relating to piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court in analysing the principle of lifting the corporate veil where companies operated as a single economic unit thereby held that ownership and control of a company are not, of themselves, sufficient to justify the piercing the corporate veil

The correct procedure for commencing an action in the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court: Edward Chilufya Mwansa and 194 Others v. Konkola Copper Mines Plc SCZ Appeal No. 99/2015 and Concrete Pipes v. Kingsley Kaimba and Another SCZ Appeal No. 014/2015

In Edward Chilufya Mwansa and 194 Others v. Konkola Copper Mines Plc, the Supreme Court dealt with a scenario where several employees had been dismissed and sought to enter an out of court settlement with their employer, through the assistance of the Labour Office. This process lasted over three years In Concrete Pipes v. Kingsley Kaimba and Another, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal from a Ruling of the Industrial Relations Court dismissing a preliminary issue in relation to the need to exhaust internal administrative channels before commencing an action before the court

Albert Mupila v. Yu-Wei COMP/ IRCLK/222/2022

An employee was employed on an oral contract of employment since June 2016 by an employer engaged in providing casino services. He was never availed with a copy of his contract and was paid a salary below the prescribed minimum for workers protected by the Shop Workers Order. During 2021, he raised a complaint relating to his NAPSA contributions and was subsequently summarily dismissed. He commenced an action before the Industrial Relations Division of the High Court seeking the following reliefs: • Benefits for the years worked; • Leave days; • Unfair and wrongful dismissal; and • Costs and any other benefits the Court may deem fit