Luyando Kopakopa, a clinical medical student, has asked the Lusaka High Court to determine whether Legana Investment Limited is competent to sue her and her partner when it should have joined in the earlier proceedings that she commenced against it on August 12, 2019.
Kopakopa, who has raised three preliminary issues at law, also wants the Court to determine whether the proceedings by Legana Investment Limited are not a multiplicity of actions between the same parties and relating to the same subject matter, and whether the proceedings should not be struck off or dismissed for multiplicity of actions.
This is in a matter in which Legana Investment Limited has sued Kopakopa and her partner Eric Nhandu, a police reserve, claiming damages for defamation of character for accusing it of producing sausages contaminated with condoms and human flesh.
But before the action by Legana Investment Limited, Kopakopa had sued the company and Pick N’ Pay in the same court, claiming damages for nausea and excessive vomiting after allegedly consuming Hungarian sausage, which had what appeared to be used a condom.
However, in skeleton arguments in support of notice of motion to raise preliminary issues at law, Kopakopa and Nhandu explained that they wanted the Court to determine whether Legana Investment Limited was competent to commence the action when the same issues it was raising were already before the High Court in the case between Kopakopa as plaintiff and Legana Meat products and Pick N’ Pay supermarket as defendants.
The duo further stated that Kopakopa was applying to amend the summons and statement of claim in the earlier matter to substitute Legana Meat Products with Legana Investment Limited.
They stated that Kopakopa commenced her action first on August 12, 2019, while Legana Investment commenced theirs on August 13, 2019, which was the following day under cause no. 2019/HP/1273 when it should have joined in the earlier proceedings.
Kopakopa and Nhandu submitted that allowing Legana Investment Limited to commence another separate case on the same subject matter would be allowing multiplicity of actions.
They urged the Court to strike off or dismiss the action commenced.