Msaka SC & Makanjira v Muluzi & MEC

JUDICIARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI ELECTORAL PETITION No. 67 OF 2025 IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 100 AND 101 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL,

PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2025 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS FOR MACHINGA LIKWENU CONSTITUENCY, IN MACHINGA

DISTRICT BETWEEN: BRIGHT MSAKA, SC

AND

MACDONALD MAKANJIRA

AND

TULINJE MULUZI

AND

MALAWI ELECTORAL COMMISSION

FIRST PETITIONER

SECOND PETITIONER

FIRST RESPONDENT

SECOND RESPONDENT

CASE SUMMARY

PARTIES

PRESIDING JUDGE

DELIVERED ON : : : Msaka, SC & Makanjira v Muluzi & MEC Honourable Justice Nriva 10th November 2025 1. Brief facts The Petitioners, who were candidates in the 16th September 2025 parliamentary elections for the Machinga Likwenu Constituency, filed an electoral petition in the High Court of Malawi, which faced a preliminary objection raised by the First Respondent. The two grounds of the preliminary objection were that sworn 1 statements were filed late by the Petitioners and that the matter was improperly commenced under the wrong section of the law.

2. The issues The main issues in this case stemmed from a preliminary objection that required the High Court to determine if the petition was defective because the supporting sworn statements were filed after the petition had been lodged. The Court also had to decide if the petition was jurisdictionally irregular because it was commenced under section 100 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act (PPLGEA) when it was challenging the release of election results and not serving as an appeal against a specific decision by the Malawi Electoral Commission confirming or rejecting an irregularity.

3. The Finding The High Court sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition, finding it defective due to the late filing of the sworn statements. Further, the Court found a substantive and procedurally incurable jurisdictional irregularity as the petition was wrongly filed under section 100 of the PPLGEA when it was not a proper appeal against a specific decision by the Malawi Electoral Commission confirming or rejecting an electoral irregularity.

4. Order: The petition having been dismissed, each party was ordered to meet their own costs. NB: The High Court of Malawi and the Honorable Judge are not bound by this explanatory note, which is provided by the Office of the Chief Registrar to facilitate public understanding of this case and to assist the media in reporting on it. Readers are encouraged to read the court’s judgment or ruling. 2