Ndindi v Chatuluka & Anor. (Misc. Cause 60 of 2016) [2017] MWHC 846 (1 September 2017)
The court found no triable issues or urgency to merit an injunction, as the 1st respondent was already acting during the applicant's suspension.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] MWHC 846
- Parties
- Applicant: Deniyas Elias Ndindi; 1st Respondent: Osman Chatuluka; 2nd Respondent: Senior T/A Kachindamoto
- Court
- High Court of Malawi
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Case Number
- Misc. Cause 60 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Injunction, Suspension of Village Headman, Interdict
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deniyas Elias Ndindi
Applicant
Osman Chatuluka
1st Respondent
Senior T/A Kachindamoto
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the 2nd respondent from recognizing the 1st respondent as Village Headman Ndindi
- 2 Whether an injunction should restrain the 1st respondent from exercising duties as Village Headman Ndindi
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no triable issues or urgency to merit an injunction, as the 1st respondent was already acting during the applicant's suspension.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- application for injunction dismissed
- costs awarded to respondents
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
~-......... ..__,,_, __ ·--1 iGH ~c--:· ··: ~------""""""·"'··· ,.,..,,~ LIBRA • 0-.',t . , I ; IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NUMBER 60 OF 2016 DENIYAS ELIAS NDINDI BETWEEN: AND OSMAN CHATULUKA------------------------------------1 sr RESPONDENT SENIOR T / A KACH INDAMOT0------------------------2N° RES PON DENT CORAM: HON. JUSTICE M. C. C. MKANDAWIRE Ta um be, Counsel for the Applicant Salima, Counsel for the Respondents ltai, Court Interpreter RULING The applicant in this matter applies for an injunction to have the 2nd respondent restrained from recognizing the 1st respondent from exercising duties as Village Headman Ndindi and a further order restraining the ist respondent from exercising duties as Village Headman Ndindi until the final determination of the matter or until a further order of this court. The application is supported by an ______ . affidavit and _skeleton arguments. The court record does not have an affidavit in - -~ opposition. Aii that is there on record is an affidavit opposing the originating summons. I have carefully looked at the affidavit in support of this application dated 30th May 2016. It is clear from the said affidavit that the applicant had been suspended by the 2 nd respondent as Group Village Headman Ndindi on account of misbehavior. In the course of the suspension, the 1 st respondent was appointed in an acting capacity as Village Headman Ndindi. It is thus this appointment that the applicant is trying to interdict. With due respect, this court does not see any merit in this application as I fail to see the triable issues that would merit an injunction. This is a matter that is just fit for full hearing of the case as there is no urgency in this application after the p t respondent had already been acting when the applicant was on suspension. I therefore dismiss the application with costs. MADE THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 AT LILONGVvE M. C. C. MKANDAWIRE JUDGE - - - - - --- -