Malida v Kasim (Civil Cause 333 of 2017) [2018] MWHC 836 (29 August 2018)

Malida v Kasim (Civil Cause 333 of 2017) [2018] MWHC 836 (29 August 2018)

The claimant failed to disclose a material fact—the setting aside of the order relied upon for the injunction—which would have been discovered by proper inquiry. This non-disclosure justified the discharge of the ex parte freezing injunction.

Citation
[2018] MWHC 836
Parties
Claimant: Abdul Gaffar Ismael Malida; Defendant: Monsoor Rashid Kasim
Court
High Court of Malawi
Jurisdiction
Malawi
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Case Number
Civil Cause 333 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Discharge Ex Parte Freezing Injunction
Outcome
Application allowed; freezing injunction discharged
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Non Disclosure, Rectification of Land Register
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Injunctions Non Disclosure Rectification of Land Register

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Gaffar Ismael Malida

Claimant

Monsoor Rashid Kasim

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Discharge Ex Parte Freezing Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte freezing injunction should be discharged for material non-disclosure by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to disclose a material fact—the setting aside of the order relied upon for the injunction—which would have been discovered by proper inquiry. This non-disclosure justified the discharge of the ex parte freezing injunction.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; freezing injunction discharged

Orders

  • The freezing injunction is discharged.
  • The claimant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.