Malawi Judiciary

01/06/2026

Sworn In!

Congratulations, Honourable Justice Dr. Michael C. Mtambo (Rtd)👏👏👏

31/05/2026

Here is a summary of key activities and judicial business at the Supreme Court of Appeal during the just-ended week.

28/05/2026

𝗛𝗼𝗻. 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲

Honourable Justice Jabbar Alide of the High Court, Commercial Division, is scheduled to speak at the prestigious 10th ICC Africa Conference on International Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, which will be held from 3-5 June 2026 in Lagos, Nigeria.

Hosted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Nigeria, the landmark conference will bring together arbitration practitioners, business leaders, policymakers, and dispute resolution experts to discuss dispute resolution and cross-border commercial transactions across the continent.

Justice Alide will showcase Malawi’s growing commitment to arbitration by spotlighting the recently enacted International Arbitration Act, 2024, which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as well as the establishment of the Malawi International Arbitration Centre.

Speaking ahead of the conference, Justice Alide said the Malawi Judiciary has been instrumental in ensuring that commerce thrives in respective jurisdictions.

He further expressed his excitement as he looks forward to demonstrating “how the modern Judge and the bench must support international commercial arbitration, and showcase the steps that Malawi, and the Malawi Judiciary, are taking in encouraging arbitration, both at the local and international stage.”

The participation of Justice Alide at this high-level continental forum reflects the Malawi Judiciary’s continued commitment to embracing modern dispute resolution mechanisms and strengthening Malawi’s position within the global commercial and arbitration landscape.

The conference will be held under the theme: “𝘈 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦: 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 & 𝘈𝘋𝘙 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.”

International Chamber of Commerce ICC Nigeria

25/05/2026

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀

The Honourable Chief Justice Rizine Mzikamanda, SC, has this morning officially opened an induction training for Senior Resident Magistrates who were appointed into the Judiciary.

The two-day training will expose the participants to ethical obligations and court decorum; court administration and finance management; criminal trials; corruption and financial crimes; sexual offences and trafficking in persons; conditions of service and career path; judgment writing; jurisdiction of magistrates in civil matters, and civil procedure generally; and case and diary management, among others.

𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀:
Honourable Justice of Appeal John Katsala SC,
Honourable Justice of Appeal Dorothy nyaKaunda Kamanga SC, Honourable Justice Dr. Chifundo Kachale,
Honourable Justice Prof. Redson Kapindu,
Honourable Justice Joseph Chigona,
Honourable Justice Mandala Mambulasa,
Honourable Justice Chimbizgani Kacheche,
Honourable Justice Jean Kayira,
Chief Resident Magistrate (South West) - His Worship Paul Chiotcha,
Chief Courts Administrator - Mrs Edith Chikagwa, and
Deputy Director of Human Resource, Mrs Naomi Kwerani.

The training has been organised by the Judiciary Training Committee with support from Irish Rule of Law International.

25/05/2026

Once again, we begin the week with a look back and a look ahead!
We bring you a summary of key activities and judicial business in the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal in the past week and cases taking place in the Richard Banda Session, in Open Courts and Chambers beginning 25th to 29th May, 2026.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸 - 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻:

𝟮𝟱𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗮𝘆, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
⚖️Patrick Ngwira and Abel Chiumia vs Francis Ngwira
MSCA Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2026
Hon. Justice Kapanda SC, JA (Chamber)

𝟮𝟲𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗮𝘆, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
⚖️Tom Kangulu vs Aziz Mohamed Issa
MSCA Misc Civil Application No. 02 of 2026
Hon. Justice Mbvundula SC, JA (Chamber)

⚖️The Registered Trustees of National Initiative for Civic Education Trust vs Jean Bulirani and others
MSCA Misc Civil Application No. 62 of 2025
Hon. Justice Mbvundula SC, JA (Chamber)

⚖️Mateyu Patrick Kaunda and another vs Bua Sauzande
MSCA Misc Civil Application No. 20 of 2026
Hon. Justice Chatha Kamanga SC, JA (Ruling)

𝟮𝟴𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗮𝘆, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
⚖️Steven Mahowa Vs National Bank of Malawi
MSCA Civil Appeal No 22 of 2019
Judgement
Hon the Chief Justice Mzikamanda SC
Hon Deputy Chief Justice Chikopa SC
Hon Justice Potani SC, JA
Hon Justice Katsala SC, JA
Hon Justice Kamanga SC, JA
Hon Justice Mkandawire SC, JA

23/05/2026

𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁!

𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗭𝘂𝗹𝘂 𝘃 𝗔𝗹𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝘄𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗶 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 - 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝗼. 𝟵𝟱 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱
(Before Hon. Justice William Yakuwawa Msiska) - 20th May 2026

In which the 1st Respondent filed an application by way of preliminary objection to strike out the petition commenced by the petitioner, who commenced proceedings under section 101 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act, 2023, alleging electoral irregularities, particularly concerning the handling of void votes by polling officials and seeking the nullification of the election and the holding of a by-election.

Application to strike out the petition is dismissed.

Access the Ruling: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/938

23/05/2026

𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁!

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 (𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗸𝘂𝗺𝗯𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗼 𝗠𝗸𝘄𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮) 𝘃. 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗶 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆
(Before Hon. Kenyatta Nyirenda) - 21st May 2026

In which the Claimant was contesting the decision of the Defendant to continue dealing with disciplinary proceedings against him beyond the mandatory 90-day limit set under section 95(1) of the Legal Education and Legal Practitioners Act.

Access the Judgement: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/926

22/05/2026

𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁!

𝗟𝗮𝘄𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗦𝗶𝘆𝗮𝗻𝗶 𝘃𝘀 𝗞𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗯𝘂 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 - 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟭𝟮 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟵

(Before Hon. Justice Mandala Mambulasa)

In which the claimant, who was employed by the defendant as a security guard and was stationed at Kalibu Academy High School at Chileka in Blantyre, was claiming against the defendant for damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, defamation, special damages amounting to the sum of MK164,000.00 being actual loss for disposing off his property to apply for court bail, exemplary damages and costs of the action.

The Court has found that the claimant’s arrest was indeed instigated by the defendant; the claimant was maliciously prosecuted by the State at the instigation of the defendant; the claimant was falsely imprisoned and deprived of his liberty from 13th to 28th October, 2016.

The claimant shall be compensated by the defendant for ordinary damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The Registrar of the Civil Division shall assess damages payable unless the parties shall earlier agree on the same.

Access the Judgment: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/925

21/05/2026

𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗢𝗗𝗔𝗬!

𝗠𝗦𝗖𝗔 𝗖𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗟 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗡𝗼. 𝟴 𝗢𝗙 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱
(𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯)

𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗘𝗘𝗡:
𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗢 𝗦𝗨𝗚𝗔𝗥 (𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗜) 𝗣𝗟𝗖 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗟𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗧
𝗔𝗡𝗗
𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗜 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗨𝗘 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧

(Hon. Chief Justice R.R. Mzikamanda, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal F.E. Kapanda, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal H. Potani, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal Chatha-Kamanga, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal S. Kalembera, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal D. Madise, SC; Hon. Justice of Appeal D. nyaKaunda Kamanga, SC.)

21st May 2026

𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀
In 2019, Illovo Sugar (Malawi) PLC (the Appellant) sought Tax Clearance Certificates from the Malawi Revenue Authority (the Respondent) to remit payments to two South African IT service providers, Bytes Systems Integration and Adapt IT (Pty) Ltd. The Appellant contended that these payments were exempt from non-resident tax as "industrial or commercial profits" under the Malawi–South Africa Double Taxation Agreement (DTA).

The MRA rejected this, demanding deduction and remittance of tax under Section 76A of the Taxation Act. After the Commissioner General of MRA dismissed an administrative appeal, a Special Arbitrator ruled in the Appellant’s favour, finding it was a "representative taxpayer" with legal standing to challenge the tax.

After the High Court reversed the Special Arbitrator’s decision, holding that the Appellant was a mere "withholding agent" without legal standing to contest the substantive liability of non-residents, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court of Appeal.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀
The Supreme Court of Appeal determined the following issues:
𝗶. Whether the Appellant is a representative taxpayer under Part VIII (sections 77–79) or solely a withholding agent under section 76A of the Taxation Act.
𝗶𝗶. Whether a withholding agent has legal standing to challenge the substantive tax liability of a third party or to invoke DTA protections reserved for non-residents.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴
The Supreme Court of Appeal made the following findings:
𝗶. Part VIIA and Part VIII of the Taxation Act clearly provide for a representative taxpayer. Under sections 77 and 78 of the Taxation Act, a representative taxpayer stands in the shoes of the actual taxpayer and assumes the rights, liabilities, and obligations of that taxpayer.

𝗶𝗶. That the Appellant in the present appeal was merely discharging its own contractual obligation to pay for IT services rendered by the South African entities, Bytes Systems Integration and Adapt IT (Pty) Ltd.

𝗶𝗶𝗶. That the Appellant’s obligation to deduct and remit non-resident tax at source arose solely under section 76A of the Taxation Act. Therefore, rather than being the person legally chargeable for the underlying tax liability, the Appellant only acted as a withholding agent responsible for collecting and remitting the tax.

𝗶𝘃. That the two South African IT service providers whose income was subject to tax under section 76A of the Taxation Act were exclusively legally liable for the non-resident tax.

𝘃. That according to the principles of locus standi, the Appellant lacked sufficient legal interest to challenge the non-resident entities' substantive tax liability or to invoke the protections of the Malawi–South Africa Double Taxation Agreement on their behalf.

𝘃𝗶. Although section 113 of the Taxation Act permits an appeal in respect of penalties imposed for failure to deduct or remit tax, such right of appeal is confined to the validity of the penalty itself and does not extend to litigation of third parties’ underlying tax liability.

𝘃𝗶𝗶. That any rights arising under the Malawi–South Africa Double Taxation Agreement belong exclusively to the non-resident taxpayers who earned the income or to a properly recognised representative taxpayer under Part VIII of the Taxation Act and not to the Appellant in its capacity as a withholding agent.

𝘃𝗶𝗶𝗶. Sections 97 and 98 of the Taxation Act confer on a taxpayer the right to appeal. The terminology used in the statute is important. Only a person who is a taxpayer and is aggrieved by an assessment, decision, or determination falling within the Act may appeal to the Commissioner General or the Special Arbitrator.

𝗶𝘅. In the present case, the South African IT service providers were the taxpayers in relation to the income. The Appellant’s obligation was limited to deducting and remitting tax from the payments due to them. The Appellant was not chargeable to taxation in respect of that income. It follows that the Appellant lacked standing under sections 97 and 98 of the Act to bring a statutory appeal challenging the non-residents’ substantive tax liability. Therefore, the Special Arbitrator erred in treating the Appellant as a representative taxpayer. The High Court was correct to reverse that ruling.

𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀
The Supreme Court of Appeal made the following orders:
𝗶. The appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety for want of locus standi.
𝗶𝗶. The judgment of the High Court dated 10 April 2025 is upheld.
𝗶𝗶𝗶. The Appellant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of this appeal.
𝗶𝘃. The Appellant shall further pay the Respondent’s costs in the court below and in the proceedings before the Special Arbitrator. Such costs to be taxed, if not agreed.

19/05/2026

𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗚𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗙 𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗜
𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗡𝗼. 𝟵𝟯 𝗢𝗙 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱
(𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗻. 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝗮𝘂𝗸𝗼 𝗠𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗮)

𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗮, 𝗣𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗵𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝗠𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘆𝗮, 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗱 𝗠𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘆𝗲𝘀𝗶, 𝗥𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝟰 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘃𝘀 𝗧𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗙𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗶 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

13th May, 2026

𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗬

𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀
The matter arose from the Parliamentary Elections, held on 16th September 2025, for Chiradzulu Masanjala Constituency (the Constituency) in Chiradzulu District. The Petitioners, who were parliamentary candidates in the election, challenged the declaration of Tony Fletcher (1st Respondent) as the duly elected Member of Parliament by the Malawi Electoral Commission (2nd Respondent).

The Petitioners alleged several electoral irregularities before, during, and after polling. The allegations were as follows:
• Electoral staff and presiding officers directed voters to vote for the 1st Respondent.
• The 1st Respondent and his campaign team continued campaigning after the official campaign period had closed.
• Cash handouts were allegedly distributed to voters.
• Voters were ferried to polling stations by the 1st Respondent’s vehicles.
• Ballots cast in favour of the Petitioners were improperly declared null and void.
• Security officers intimidated monitors for the Petitioners.

The Petitioners sought an order nullifying the election results and directing the 2nd Respondent to conduct fresh parliamentary elections in the Constituency.

The Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that it was procedurally defective and that the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence.

𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀
1. Whether the petition was competently brought under section 100 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act (the Act).
2. Whether the petition complied with the procedural requirements relating to sworn statements and identification of parties.
3. Whether the Petitioners proved the alleged electoral irregularities on a balance of probabilities.
4. Whether the Petitioners proved that the alleged irregularities affected the outcome of the election.

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀
The Court found that the petition was procedurally defective and incompetently brought under section 100 of the Act.

The Court held that section 100 applies only where there is an appeal against a decision of the Malawi Electoral Commission confirming or rejecting alleged irregularities. In this case, the Petitioners did not identify nor attach any decision made by the 2nd Respondent regarding their complaints. Instead, their complaint was essentially challenging the election result itself, which ought to have been brought under section 101 of the Act.

The Court further found that the sworn statement accompanying the petition was defective because:
• It merely verified the petition instead of supporting it with evidence.
• It was only signed by the 1st Petitioner despite purporting to be made on behalf of all the Petitioners.
• Civil Procedure Rules require each deponent to personally sign the sworn statement.

Additionally, the Court held that the petition was defective because only five of the nine Petitioners were identified by name, contrary to procedural rules requiring every party to proceedings to be named separately.

On the merits, the Court observed that the Petitioners failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the alleged irregularities. The allegations were largely unsupported by direct testimony or concrete evidence. The Court also held that even if irregularities had been proved, the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the irregularities affected the outcome of the election.

𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿
The Court dismissed the petition.

The Court declined to nullify the election results and refused to order fresh elections.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs because the matter involved issues of public interest.

Full Judgement: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/922

𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲!

Here is a judgment in the matter of the 16th September, 2025 Parliamentary Elections for Chiradzulu Masanjala Constituency between Glory Simbota, Peterkins Demphster, Matias Maganga Chimenya, Junior Lloyd Mwenyesi, Rocky Praise Chipenembe and 4 Others vs Tony Fletcher and Malawi Electoral Commission.

The judgment was delivered on 13th May 2026 by Hon. Justice Masauko Msungama: https://www.judiciary.mw/node/922