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 a preliminary objection, holding that a section 101 election petition was not res judicata as it raised a distinct cause of action from an earlier section 100 appeal.
The High Court dismissed an election petition over Chikwawa North, holding the petitioner did not prove irregularities that materially affected the result.
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory injunction application in an electoral matter because no substantive proceedings had been commenced and the wrong procedure was used.
The High Court held that Daniel Binda’s nomination rejection was unlawful because MEC failed to timely notify him of the defect and allow correction before close of nominations.
The State vs The Acting Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (Judicial Review Cause 5 of 2025) [2025] MWHCFin 3 (31 August 2025)
High Court ruling on a judicial review application challenging an ACB notice to Vice President Dr Michael B. Usi. Permission was granted on expression issues and the notice was partly stayed.
The State( On The Application Of Democratic Progressive Party) vs Electoral Commission & Mpesi (Judicial Review Cause 36 of 2022) [2025] MWHC 19 (20 August 2025)
The claimant failed to demonstrate any specific injury or legally protected right infringed by the appointment of the interested party as Chief Elections Officer. The claimant's fears were speculative and not based on any actual breach or decision. Judicial review cannot be founded on anticipated future decisions or speculative harm. The claimant lacked locus standi and sufficient interest; therefore, permission for judicial review and interlocutory injunction was denied.
Source excerpt
A political party’s bid for judicial review of the appointment of the Electoral Commission’s Chief Elections Officer failed for lack of locus standi and sufficient interest.
Democratic Progressive Party V The Attorney General (On behalf of The President of Malawi) (Civil Cause 230 of 2021; Constitutional Referral 3 of 2021) [2021] MWSC 11 (26 November 2021)
The proceedings were an abuse of process, res judicata, and an appeal in disguise, as the issues raised had already been finally determined in Malawi Congress Party v The President of the Republic of Malawi. The Claimant, as privy to the interested parties in the prior case, was precluded from re-litigating the same subject matter. The Claimant also sought to benefit from its own illegality in nominating more than the lawful number of Electoral Commissioners. The action was further fatally defective for suing a non-existent party, failing to comply with statutory notice requirements, and rais…
Source excerpt
Malawi Congress Party v President of the Republic of Malawi (Judicial Review Cause 34 of 2020) [2021] MWHC 39 (2 June 2021)
The appointments of the Interested Parties as members of the Electoral Commission were made in contravention of section 4 of the Electoral Commission Act, as the DPP submitted more than the maximum number of nominees and the Defendant appointed more than the statutory maximum, while failing to appoint all the Claimant's nominees. The process was ultra vires and illegal. The appointments are quashed, and the proper nomination and appointment process must be followed. The Claimant has sufficient interest, the application is not time-barred due to continuing breach, and there was no waiver or ac…
Source excerpt
Mutharika & Anor. v Chilima & Anor. (MSCA Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2020) [2020] MWSC 1 (8 May 2020)
The presidential election of 21st May 2019 was not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and electoral laws due to widespread and serious irregularities, including unlawful alteration and use of tally sheets, failure to resolve complaints, and unlawful delegation of quasi-judicial powers by the Electoral Commission. None of the candidates obtained the constitutionally required majority of 50%+1 of votes cast. The Electoral Commission breached its constitutional and statutory duties. The Attorney General was conflicted in representing the Commission in the constitutional referral. The…
Source excerpt
Explore more
