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
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed the State’s ex parte bid to withdraw a corruption trial, holding that the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code withdrawal provision did not apply to High Court cases.
The High Court of Malawi entered a discontinuance after a DPP certificate, discharging four accused persons and addressing the effect on bail and future charges.
The High Court of Malawi entered a discontinuance on the DPP’s certificate, discharged six accused persons, and ordered that any bail recognizances be discharged.
The State(On The Application Of The Director Of The Public Prosecutions) vs The Chief Justice Of The High Court Of Malawi (Judicial Review Cause 4 of 2025) [2025] MWHCFin 2 (2 September 2025)
The High Court refused permission for judicial review of the Chief Justice’s certification of a criminal matter as constitutional, holding the certification was judicial and final.
The High Court refused permission to seek judicial review of the Chief Justice’s certification of a criminal matter as constitutional, holding the certification was judicial and conclusive.
The High Court dealt with a withdrawn bail application in a homicide matter, held that criminal process and case-management directions remained active, and ordered release without conditions and further steps.
Bilderburg v S (Criminal Case 1143 of 2023) [2023] MWHC 44 (15 December 2023)
The court denied William Bilderburg’s fourth bail application, holding that deletion of an INTERPOL red notice did not change the earlier flight-risk assessment.
S (on the Application of Chunara) and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions (MISC Civil Application 50 of 2023) [2023] MWSC 43 (10 November 2023)
The applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the 16-month delay in seeking judicial review, as they did not show adequate efforts to mitigate the delay or follow up with their counsel. Even if time were extended, the issues raised are more appropriately addressed by the trial court, not through judicial review.
Source excerpt
Republic v Reddy and Reddy (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 3 of 2022) [2023] MWHCRev 2 (24 March 2023)
The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s refusal to recall prosecution witnesses and held that section 165(2) required a specific finding on unreasonable delay or expense.
R v Reddy & Reddy (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 3 of 2022) [2023] MWHC 66 (24 March 2023)
The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s refusal to recall prosecution witnesses and held that section 165(2) required a finding that delay or expense would be unreasonable.
Explore more
