BACK TO THE BASICS: THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE AND ITS LIMITATIONS – THE CASE OF GILBERT CHIKOTI v ZESCO LIMITED SCZ/8/311/2013*

By

Jethro Kaposa LL. B (ZAOU); Dip. Law (NIPA)
Trainee Attorney | Dispute Resolution | Corporate Advisory
Reagan Blankfein Gates Legal Practitioners

1.0 Introduction

On 24 March 2021, the Supreme Court had occasion to reaffirm its position concerning the widely accepted doctrine of the neighbour principle under the law of negligence in the case of Gilbert Chikoti v Zesco Limited. This was an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which dismissed the appellant’s claim that the respondent was negligent. The brief facts leading to this suit were that the respondent, a power utility company, had entered into a contract with the appellant for the supply of power to the appellant’s house. On 6 September 2008, there was a loss of power supply to the appellant’s house and when the power supply was restored, there was a power surge in the electrical system which consequently resulted in the appellant’s house being gutted by fire. Disheartened by this turn of events, the appellant sued the power utility company (Zesco) for negligence.

2.0 The case in the High Court

The High Court found that the plaintiff’s house had no surge arrestors installed. The appellant, had, according to the Trial Court, not put in place all the necessary protective devices to ensure that his electrical installations were adequately protected against power surges. It followed, said the Trial Court, that the absence of the said surge arrestors meant that the high voltage or surge triggered by restoration of power supply could not safely be diverted to the earth and thus, erupted into a conflagration that incinerated the appellant’s house and property birthing the proceedings before the Trial Court. It was a further finding of the Trial Court that the tripping of three (3) circuit breakers was triggered by a high voltage in the Zesco system which, according to the Trial Court, pointed to a fault beyond the meter into the appellant’s house. This, in the Trial Court’s view, was supported by the fact that the meter was left intact. In addition, the lower court found that the fire started inside the appellant’s house, rose to the roof, and consequently burnt the Zesco cables hanging over the said roof which, as the court saw it, was indicative of why the fire was only confined to the appellant’s house, leaving eighty-seven (87) other customers supplied with power from the same line and transformer unaffected. Additionally, the Trial Court found that the appellant had not led any evidence to prove negligence on the part of the respondent which could be said to have caused the fire in question. In line with the Trial Court’s findings, the plaintiff failed to establish his case. Unhappy with this decision, the appellant skillfully crafted and subsequently launched his appeal in the Supreme Court.