Konkola Copper Mines (in liquidation) has applied for leave to appeal against the decision of High Court judge Catherine Phiri to discharge the injunction earlier granted to it restraining Copperbelt Energy Corporation from switching off electricity supply to the mine.
And KCM assistant provisional liquidator, Mr Kutawa Chamunda stated that Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) is aggrieved by judge Phiri’s decision.
Judge Phiri on August 24, 2020 vacated the Injunction which she earlier granted KCM before hearing arguments from both parties, saying the damages to be suffered by Zesco and the mine would be atoned for as damages.
Zesco limited and KCM in this case sued Copperbelt Energy Corporation (CEC) PLC for switching off electricity supply to KCM.
In an affidavit in support of ex-parte summons for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Mr Chamunda stated that the mine was aggrieved by the decision of the court to discharge the injunction because it now leaves it to the CEC notwithstanding the provisions of Statutory Instrument No.57 of 2020, to decide whether it will allow Zesco wheel power over its infrastructure to KCM.
Mr Chamunda stated that the situation was detriment to KCM in its mining operations as it leaves its mines to possibility of flooding, and that thousands of employees and citizens that depend on its health services and other social amenities in its mine township areas to the perils associated with power shut down in this COVID-19 era.
“This court did not grant leave to appeal its decision and being a chamber decision, leave to appeal is (Shine qua non) for KCM and Zesco to proceed to the court of Appeal,” he stated.
Mr Chamumda added that the prospects of the appeal succeeding are reasonably high as the danger of the mine suffering physical irreparable damage due to flooding on accounts of non-functional pumps is real and not speculative.
Mr Chamunda stated that no prejudice will be occasioned to CEC, if leave to appeal the decision to discharge the order of interim injunction is granted.
He also that the court found as a matter of fact and law that there was a serious question of law to be decided in the matter, as regards interpretation of SI No.57.