By 
High Court Judge Sharon Newa has stayed proceedings in a matter involving Chawama Member of Parliament Tasila Lungu, citing the risk of parallel litigation and conflicting decisions with a similar case currently before the Constitutional Court.
Lungu had applied for leave to commence judicial review proceedings challenging Speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti’s ruling of November 28, 2025, in which the Speaker invoked Article 72(8) of the Constitution following allegations that Lungu breached the parliamentary code by failing to attend sittings.
The Speaker subsequently indicated that she would notify the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) that a vacancy had arisen in the Chawama constituency.
However, Judge Newa noted that the issues raised by Lungu were materially indistinguishable from those in Tresford Chali v Attorney General, a matter already pending before the Constitutional Court. That case challenges the Speaker’s decision to declare the Chawama seat vacant under Article 72(2)(c) of the Constitution.
“The above being the current status of the matter that is pending before the Constitutional Court, if I were to proceed with this matter, whose facts are the same as those on which the Constitutional Court will make a determination, I would in effect be allowing a multiplicity of actions and risk different courts making conflicting decisions over the same subject matter,” Judge Newa ruled.
Lungu, represented by Leon Lemba and Norman Siwila, argued that the Speaker acted illegally and unreasonably by relying on parliamentary standing orders, which counsel contended do not have the force of legislation but are merely administrative tools for regulating the business of the House.
They contended that the Speaker acted outside the law and that the matter was properly before the High Court by way of judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England.
The State raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the High Court lacked authority to interpret constitutional provisions under Article 128(1), which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Constitutional Court. State lawyers submitted that the application was defective and amounted to an abuse of court process, as it duplicated proceedings already before the apex constitutional tribunal.
Judge Newa agreed, noting that the Constitutional Court’s authority was binding on the High Court. She therefore stayed determination of the application pending the outcome of the Constitutional Court matter.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR
Comments