State v Ex Parte Muluzi & Anor. (2 of 2009) [2009] MWHC 12 (7 May 2009)

State v Ex Parte Muluzi & Anor. (2 of 2009) [2009] MWHC 12 (7 May 2009)

The court held that although the PPEA does not expressly provide a remedy for rejected presidential nominees, the legislative intent and structure of the Act imply that such nominees have a right to seek redress from the Electoral Commission before approaching the High Court. However, in this case, the applicants were deprived of this remedy due to the premature closure of nominations, entitling them to seek judicial review. The application to discharge leave for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2009] MWHC 12
Parties
1st Applicant: Dr. Bakili Muluzi; 2nd Applicant: United Democratic Front; Respondent: Electoral Commission
Court
High Court of Malawi
Jurisdiction
Malawi
Judgment Date
7 May 2009
Case Number
2 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Civil Cause / Ruling on Application to Discharge Leave for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application to discharge leave for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Alternative Remedies, Nomination of Presidential Candidates, Election Disputes
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Alternative Remedies Nomination of Presidential Candidates Election Disputes

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Bakili Muluzi

1st Applicant

United Democratic Front

2nd Applicant

Electoral Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Civil Cause / Ruling on Application to Discharge Leave for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants suppressed material facts in seeking judicial review
  2. 2 Whether alternative remedies existed under the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act (PPEA) for a rejected presidential nominee
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review proceedings were an abuse of court process due to political alliance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the PPEA does not expressly provide a remedy for rejected presidential nominees, the legislative intent and structure of the Act imply that such nominees have a right to seek redress from the Electoral Commission before approaching the High Court. However, in this case, the applicants were deprived of this remedy due to the premature closure of nominations, entitling them to seek judicial review. The application to discharge leave for judicial review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge leave for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to move for judicial review is maintained
  • Costs will be in the cause