By Daily Revelation Reporter
A Lusaka businessman Misheck Chatora says he wants to teach Supreme Court Judge Evans Hamaundu a lesson, saying he is puzzled that despite accusing the judges of corruption they have failed to cite him for contempt.
And Chatora’s Company, Maritime Freight and Forewardung Limited has filed an affidavit in support of motion against Zambian Breweries in the Supreme Court fallowing his dissatisfaction with how the previous matter was handled by justices Michael Musonda, Hamaundu, Roydah Kaomaand Nigel Mutuna.
Chatora has reported the four justices before the Judicial Complaints Commission (JCC) over how they handled his appeal case against Zambian Breweries and accused them of issuing a fraudulent judgment, at one point accusing Judge Hamaundu of asking K20,000 from him in the same complaint.
“I want to teach Hamaundu a lesson. Where do you accuse judges for corruption and they fail to summon you for contempt? Let them call me I will prove corruption,” Chatora said to Daily Revelation. “I will even mention a Judge who told me about the corruption going on.”
Following his complaint to the JCC, Chatora has filed a notice of motion in the Supreme Court, that it was a matter of record that the Supreme Court rendered its judgement in this action on August 30, 2022 and that it was held by the Supreme Court in its judgement at page 46 under paragraph 7.13.4.4 that the real issues was that the respondent (Chatora) did not adduce specific documents which pointed to the fact that the appellant (Zambian Breweries), never calculated the BIT (Breakages in Transit) allowance on return trips and on loads without broken or missing bottles and which showed the actual loss that the respondent incurred by that alleged omission.
Chatora submitted that further to page 49, the judgement the court held that “to prove the claim, the respondent should have specifically identified and set apart specific documents, such as trip data sheets, invoices, debit notes and so on…These should have demonstrated those instances when the appellant calculated the allowance on a single trailer, instead of an inter-link trailer (that is 1,470 cases), and those instances when a price of other than that of castle lager had been used.”
The respondent argued that in line with this observation by the court, the BIT allowance was to be calculated on the basis of a load of 1,470 cases and that the price of castle lager, the award of K255,569.72 to the respondent in the judgement, the judgement needed to be revisited as the same was arrived at using a combination of the prices of castle lager and Coca-Cola for mixed loads, and that the documentary evidence was brought out at pages 1031, 1032 and 1033 of the record of appeal.
Chatora submitted that material documentary evidence was provided in the form of debit notes and trip data sheets amongst others to demonstrate losses incurred, and that the portions of those excepts of those documents have been exhibited in the affidavit collectively marked as “MC2” and numbered as they appear in the record of appeal.
The respondent submitted that to show that there was a loss on his account after the appellant’s calculation of BIT allowance, debit note number 2297 for the month of June 2010 shows that 141 loads/trios/invoices were applied and a standard of 1,470 cases per load were applied and 0.25 was applied and K124,714 for the price of castle was applied bringing the BIT allowance to K64,624,300.52 (un-rebased) and that this debit note was shown at page 139 of the record of appeal, and argued that the actual number of loads that should have been applied when computing the BIT allowance for June 2010 in relation to full loads only is found on the trip data sheet at pages 659 and 664 of the record of appeal, and that the number of loads found in column 7 of the said trip data sheet amounted to 238 loads, with the BIT load recalculated by the respondent by multiplying 238 loads by 1,470 cases multiplied by the rate of 0.25 percent multiplied by K124,714 bringing it to K109,081,100.10 (unrebased).
The respondent submitted that the judgement by the courts that 1,470 cases plus the price of castle lager were to be applied when computing the BIT allowance was contrary to what is said in the debit notes from July 2011 to January 2012
Chatora submitted that the debit note number 7004 generated by the appellant was exhibited for July 2011 showing that the BIT allowance applied by the appellant at the rate of .25 inclusive of VAT came to K67,247,112.23 (un-rebased), while at pages 758 and 75 of the record of appeal, the respondent exhibited a trip data sheet for July 2011 showing the total trips of full loads for the said month being 177 trips multiplied by 1,470 cases and multiplied by .25 and further multiplied by the standard price for a case of castle at K124.71 bringing the total to K81,123,339.00 (unrebased) for July 2011, and that the difference between the BIT applied the appellant’s debit note and the respondent’s trip data sheet for July 2011 gave a difference of K13,875,227.00 (unrebased).
As for debit note number 7008 generated by the appellant for August 2011, the difference between the BIT applied in the appellant’s debit note and the respondent’s trip data sheet the difference was K16,545,843.00 (unrebased), the respondent submitted.
For September 2011, Chatora argued that the difference between the BIT applied in the appellant’s debit note and the respondent’s trip data sheet for August 2011 the difference was K7,271,091.00 (unrebased) to have been the difference due to the respondent as a BIT allowance for September, 2011.
The other figures the respondent has argued as showing differences between the appellant’s computation and the details shown by the respondent for the successive months is K18,340,388.00 (unrebased), K25,039,244.00, K6,097,493.00 (unrebased), and K12,375,639.00 (unrebased).
Chatora submitted that the evidence already provided on record in the form of debit notes and trip data sheets which also contain invoice references recorded as document numbers in support of the respondent’s claim for the aggregate sum of K99,545.93 being the portion of the BIT allowance outstanding for the period July 2011 to January 2012 out of the entire claim of K4,756,534.37.
The respondent stated that the debit notes generated by the appellant which revealed an aggregate sum of K637,455,826.22 (unrebased) being BIT allowance which was credited to him when read against the trip data sheet of the record of appeal revealed the sum of K1,493,228,560.45 (unrebased), arguing that the loss suffered amounted to K855,772.73 (rebased).
The respondent argued that as for the debit notes produced on pages 302, 138, 160, 193, 222 of the record of appeal showed K321,743,413.00 against the trip data sheets pages 722-759 of the record of appeal revealed the sum of K566,790,744.77 (unrebased) and the difference between the two was K245,047.00 (rebased) which he claimed as loss suffered by him.
As for the claimed K1,861,172.32, Chatora addressed the statement by the appellant for trips in relation to full loads from April 2009 to December 2009, which he claimed showed delivered cases for mixed loads, beer loads, and coke/soft drink loads, and that the appellant used a combination of the prices of castle and Coca-Cola for the mixed loads instead of only using prices of castle across all loads to compute the BIT allowance, and that further to the same, the respondent recomputed the BIT allowance using the price of castle for all loads and for 1,470 cases as a standard and arrived at K1,861,172.32 which was explained in the amended statement by Chatora.
The respondent submitted that with respect to the K1,604,588.41, the material evidence is contained in trip data sheets and show outward/full trips and the return trips and that the respondent had showed the evidence.
The respondent argued that with the K54,990.23 the BIT wrongly applied came to K54,990.23, and that the respondent also calculated the K35,417.43 claim using the same formula.
On the courts decision of the judgement that the respondent needed to adduce documents on which the advances were obtained and those on which it paid back, the respondent submitted that it was not possible to adduce documentary evidence of some alleged advances because they never happened, and that in instances where advances were collected, the amounts in the record of appeal, and that they applied for K150,000 which they were paid and that the documents were there but the appellant recorded it as K250,000 in their statement .
