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
Mkumba and Tweya v Nkumba and Nkumba (Probate Cause 43 of 2018) [2022] MWHC 29 (15 February 2022)
The High Court of Malawi revoked Letters of Administration over a disputed intestate estate, appointed the Administrator General, ordered an audit, and found property-grabbing in relation to one company asset.
Nachamba and Nachamba v Sapa, Wheeler and Mkhoma (Civil Cause 216 of 2020) [2021] MWHC 370 (26 August 2021)
The High Court refused to set aside an interlocutory injunction over disputed estate land, finding no material non-disclosure and no adequate damages remedy.
Nachamba and Nachamba v Nachamba-Sapa , Wheller and Nkhoma (Civil Cause 216 of 2020) [2021] MWHC 291 (26 August 2021)
The claimants disclosed a good arguable claim regarding the lawful administration and distribution of the deceased estate. There was no material non-disclosure by the claimants. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the alleged unlawful actions of the 1st defendant. The balance of convenience and justice favours maintaining the injunction to preserve the estate pending determination of the action.
Source excerpt
Chikumbeni v Nyirenda (nee Floncy Chikumbeni) , Chikweza ( nee Chikumbeni) and Chikumbeni v (Civil Cause 277 of 2017) [2018] MWHC 1262 (17 January 2018)
The High Court of Malawi discharged an interim injunction in a deceased-estate dispute, holding that the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts.
Chande v Mittal (803 of 2009) [2010] MWHC 3 (4 March 2010)
The High Court of Malawi refused an injunction pending appeal, finding no stay had been obtained, an existing injunction was being breached, and damages were adequate.
Sacranie v Sacranie (Civil Cause 556 of 2007) [2008] MWHC 139 (10 July 2008)
The applicant failed to provide evidence of expenditure or improvements on the land, and her evidence was inconsistent. The respondent was a mere nominee for registration, not the owner. The land forms part of the deceased's estate, vested in the Administrator General. Proprietary estoppel does not arise.
Source excerpt
Munthali v Mitawa (Civil Cause 1854 of 2001) [2002] MWHC 74 (21 June 2002)
The defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any financial contribution to the property. The plaintiff demonstrated responsibility in settling the loan and caring for the children, while the defendant was absent and did not contribute. The law entitles the children solely to the estate, and the defendant's constitutional challenge to section 16(4) of the Wills and Inheritance Act fails for lack of proof.
Source excerpt
Oliunga Farms Limited v Adminstrator General (Civil Cause 731 of 1980) [1990] MWHC 23 (15 October 1990)
The High Court of Malawi refused to discharge an interlocutory injunction, holding the company followed the required ex parte procedure and the Administrator General could not run the company.
Maida v Maida & Anor. (Civil Cause 14 of 2003) [2003] MWHC 76 (28 October 2003)
The plaintiff was entitled to the interlocutory injunction as there was a substantial issue to be tried regarding the administration and distribution of the estate, damages were not an adequate remedy, and the balance of justice favoured maintaining the status quo. There was no material non-disclosure by the plaintiff that would warrant dissolving the injunction.
Source excerpt
Mwanjala v Njobvu Estate (Civil Cause 360 of 2004) [2003] MWHC 82 (31 December 2003)
The respondent cannot be considered a trespasser as his occupation was based on a purported sale by Billy Mwanjala, and the matter raises serious issues regarding title and bona fide purchase that cannot be summarily determined under Order 113.
Source excerpt
Explore more
