Phakamisa v Kachola (Misc. Civil Application 77 of 2017) [2018] MWHC 1062 (1 October 2018)

Phakamisa v Kachola (Misc. Civil Application 77 of 2017) [2018] MWHC 1062 (1 October 2018)

The injunction was discharged because the applicant suppressed material information regarding the ownership and documentation of the motor vehicle, and failed to disclose that the police, affected by the order, were not made parties to the application.

Citation
[2018] MWHC 1062
Parties
Applicant: Chifundo Phakamisa; Respondent: Mayeso Kachola
Court
High Court of Malawi
Jurisdiction
Malawi
Judgment Date
1 October 2018
Case Number
Misc. Civil Application 77 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Suppression of Material Facts, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Injunctions Suppression of Material Facts Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chifundo Phakamisa

Applicant

Mayeso Kachola

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction was obtained through suppression of material facts
  2. 2 Whether the injunction should be discharged

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because the applicant suppressed material information regarding the ownership and documentation of the motor vehicle, and failed to disclose that the police, affected by the order, were not made parties to the application.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The injunction is discharged.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.