04/05/2026
We are pleased to announce that we have succeeded in defending the legality of the Big Mama Market (formerly Lumumba Bus Station), which is a Public-Private Partnership development in the heart of the CBD of Lusaka
Big Mama traders lose battle to block Lumumba Market redevelopment
THE Lusaka High Court has dismissed a case brought by more than 100 traders from Big Mama Market at Lumumba Bus Station (Munyaule Market), who had challenged the planned redevelopment of their trading site.
The traders, led by Philip Mkandawire and others, had sued the Lusaka City Council and Kaddoura Construction Limited, seeking to stop the redevelopment and obtain compensation for alleged financial losses after being displaced from their market.
They were seeking several orders from the court, including cancellation of contracts awarded to the developer, stopping construction works and declarations that the redevelopment and demarcation of their trading area were unlawful, null and void.
The traders also demanded reimbursement for income allegedly lost since January 2024 until they are allowed to return to their trading site.
The case was opposed by Kaddoura Construction Limited, represented by L.J. Micheals Legal Practitioners, with advocate Michael Moono appearing for the developer while the Lusaka City Council was represented by its in house counsel, A. Nsama.
The developer’s lawyer Moono argued that the case had been wrongly filed as an ordinary civil action instead of being brought through judicial review.
He submitted that the reliefs sought by the traders were in substance, challenges to decisions made by a public authority and therefore had to be pursued under administrative law procedures.
The law firm further contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter in its current form and that the claims did not disclose a valid cause of action because the council acted within its statutory powers in managing markets.
In its ruling, the High Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the defendants.
Justice Gertrude Chawatama stated that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and agreed that the mode of commencement was wrong.
She further held that several of the reliefs sought by the traders were essentially judicial review remedies, noting that the reliefs were all seeking orders of certiorari which must be sought in judicial review and not in a matter commenced by writ.
"It is my considered view that, in this matter, the reliefs sought numbered ii, iii, iv, v, and vii cannot be granted under the current mode of commencement. I am persuaded that the Plaintiffs ought to have come to this court by way of judicial review. As the scope of judicial review as restated by the Supreme Court in the case of Nyampala Safaris (2) Limited and others v Zambia Wildlife Authority and others is concerned not with the merits of the decision, but the decision making process itself. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individuals such as the Plaintiffs are given fair treatment by the authority to which they have been subject, " said Justice Chawatama.
The court also found that the dispute related to decisions made by a statutory authority acting under law and that such decisions must be challenged through the correct legal procedure.
The court also stated that the matter was not properly before it and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction and ordered each party to bear its own costs, although the traders were granted leave to appeal.
"In line with the guidance of the Supreme Court in the case of JCN Holding Limited v Development Bank of Zambia, where the court cannot grant any remedies sought by a party to a matter, the court lacks jurisdiction. Since the mode of commencement of this current matter has not been properly launched, I have no jurisdiction to hear and determine it. I therefore find merit in the three preliminary questions."
"The net effect is that this matter is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. I further order that each party bears its own costs. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is hereby granted" ordered the court.
By Catherine P**e
Kalemba, April 30, 2026
