Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Malawi decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
R v Latif and Others (Criminal Case 1 of 2022) [2023] MWHC 69 (27 July 2023)
High Court ruling dismissing constitutional certification and charge-sheet objections in a customs, tax, and money-laundering prosecution.
Gaffar t/a Mapeto Tyres (MSCA Misc. Application 55 of 2021) [2023] MWSC 40 (26 July 2023)
The court granted an injunction releasing impounded tyres, finding continued seizure would irreparably harm the applicant’s business pending tax proceedings.
Gaffar T/A Mapeto Tyres & Mapeto Retread v Malawi Revenue Authority (55 of 2021) [2023] MWSC 19 (26 July 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an injunction application for release of impounded tyres, holding it was improperly brought as a stand-alone appellate application.
Matapa and Msiska v Roads Authority (IRC MATTER 723 of 2021) [2023] MWIRC 2 (24 July 2023)
Given the respondents' egregious conduct, lack of due process, and the applicants' lack of contribution to their own dismissals, the statutory minimum compensation would not be just and equitable. The applicants are entitled to compensation equivalent to the value of their salary and contractual entitlements for the remainder of their contracts, with the first applicant also entitled to severance for prior service. Certain discretionary benefits (e.g., club membership, training allowances) are excluded as not strictly contractual entitlements.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Malawi held that the Claimants were falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted, but dismissed special damages for lack of strict proof.
Phiri and 2 Others v Attorney General (Civil Cause 489 of 2016) [2023] MWHC 106 (20 July 2023)
The Defendant had no reasonable and probable cause to arrest or prosecute the Claimants, as the evidence did not show the Claimants incited violence and key evidence against them was hearsay and inadmissible. The prosecution was triggered by the Claimants' demand for compensation, indicating malice. Special damages were not strictly proved and thus not awarded. Claimants are entitled to damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and costs.
Source excerpt
Yusuf T/A MF & AK Yusuf Investment (a firm ) and 2 Others v Kasmany T/A Plumbing and Hardware Centre ( a firm) (Miscellaneous Civil Application 36 of 2023) [2023] MWSC 18 (18 July 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Malawi refused a stay of execution pending appeal, finding the applicants had not shown any real risk that the respondent could not repay the judgment debt.
CDH Capital Limited and Another v Mlusu (Civil Appeal 10 of 2020) [2023] MWSC 29 (18 July 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the letter of 20 April 2016 constituted a binding agreement supported by consideration, that the respondent fully discharged his debt by payment of MK16,304,708.82, and that the respondent was entitled to interest, collection costs, and legal costs as pleaded and not specifically denied. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety with costs.
Source excerpt
Kandulu and Antony v R (Criminal Appeal 3 of 2023) [2023] MWHC 21 (18 July 2023)
The High Court quashed trafficking convictions, finding the charge lacked sufficient particulars and the prosecution failed to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Kadzipatike and Kamwera t/a KAM Building Contractors v Zhejiang Communications Construction Group Company Limited (MISC Civil Application 29 of 2023) [2023] MWSC 37 (14 July 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal of Malawi sustained a stay of execution pending appeal, granted leave to appeal, and excluded later orders made without hearing the Applicants.
Explore more
