HUNGRY Lion Limited says the claim by a Lusaka resident that she was sold chicken with maggots raises suspicion because the piece of chicken which had allegedly gone bad did not have maggots rooted in its flesh.
It claims that the maggots might have been inserted as they were only at a specific portion of the piece of chicken.
This is in a matter where Bertha Bwale has sued Hungry Lion Limited demanding K1 million as compensation for negligence, for failing to provide clean, safe and healthy food, by serving her chicken and chips which had maggots.
Bwale wants the Lusaka High Court to compel Hungry Lion Limited to award her general damages, damages for mental anguish, stress, inconvenience, compensation of K1,000,000 costs and any other reliefs the court might deem fit.
In her statement of claim, Bwale said that on September 5, 2019, whilst in the company of two other friends, she went to the defedant’s hungry Lion outlet at Manda Hill to have a meal and she ordered chicken and chips.
Bwale stated that she was served with the food as ordered and started consuming it, but in the process of the same, she noticed maggots in the food.
“The plaintiff then vomited while crying with grief as she was nauseated continuously,” she claimed.
She said that she brought the issue to the attention of one of Hungry Lion’s staff, who brushed the issue aside.
Bwale claimed that upon being ignored by the said employee, she reported the matter to the Lusaka City Council and later to the Ministry of Health Food and Drugs control laboratory who conducted laboratory tests on the food.
The complainant said that the existence of maggots in the food was confirmed by the results after a foreign matter identification and bacteriological analysis was duly performed.
Bwale alleged that as a result of eating the food, she experienced a running stomach for four days, was nauseated for two weeks and generally fell ill for two months.
She further claimed that as a result of her experience, she has failed to eat her favourite food “chicken and chips” from any other place.
Bwale said that the particulars of negligence by hungry lion were that it failed to provide clean, safe and healthy food, failed to check the state of the food before serving it to her and for failing to provide first aid to her upon discovering maggots in the food and reporting to its (Hungry Lion) staff.
She claimed that she had suffered damage, loss and inconvenience in her normal way of life as a result of the said negligence of Hungry Lion Limited.
But in its defence, Hungry Lion Limited argued that Bwale did not discover maggots in the food as alleged.
It said Bwale carried the food away upon being served and did not consume the same from its premises and she would be put to strict proof during trial.
“The defendant will aver that when the Plaintiff phoned to inform the defendant of the alleged incident, she was asked to come to the premises with a pay-forward taxi and was subsequently attended to,” Hungry Lion explained. “The defendant will further aver that when the Plaintiff later returned with inspectors from City Council, who then conducted an inspection of the defendant’s process of production of the food from beginning to end, the inspectors concluded that it was not possible for maggots to survive such a system.”
Hungry Lion Limited said that chickens and chips were transported and stored in a frozen state and only defrosted when being cooked in bulk at 141 degrees celsius and pending sale they are stored at 65 degrees celsius and the court will be invited to conduct an inspection of the same.
“The defendant will aver further that when it inspected the picture of the chicken allegedly bought from its premises, it was noticed that the alleged maggots were only at a specific portion of the food and did not appear to have been imbeded in the food which makes the whole claim suspicious,” Hungry Lion stated.
It contended that it has never been shown the results confirming that the food was contaminated as alleged by Bwale.
Hungry Lion argued that Bwale was not nauseated, neither did she fall ill because the same could not possibly have resulted from consuming the food which was bought from one of its outlets.
“The alleged particulars of negligence are equally denied. In addition, the defendant will aver that it could not have given first aid to the plaintiff when she did not consume the food from the premises,” said Hungry Lion. “The defendant denies that the plaintiff has suffered damage, loss and inconvenience she claims to have suffered and will urge the Court that the relief sought be dismissed with costs.”