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
Manjolo and Mbuluma v Blantyre City Council (Civil Cause 140 of 2018) [2022] MWHC 23 (10 February 2022)
The High Court of Malawi found that Blantyre City Council breached traffic-management contracts by failing to give the claimants access to the sites.
Telekom Networks Malawi PLC v GlobeTele Services PTE Limited (Civil Appeal 10 of 2021) [2021] MWSC 5 (3 November 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal vacated an ex parte interim injunction, held the suing party could not rely on arbitration to stay proceedings, and dismissed challenges to counsel’s documents.
Limbe v Wolrd Vision Malawi (Civil Cause 2029 of 2008) [2008] MWHC 171 (3 September 2008)
There were no special reasons to ignore the arbitration clause; it must be respected and enforced, and proceedings are stayed pending adjudication.
Source excerpt
Chirwa t/a Tikhale Building Contractors v MD Initiative (Civil Cause 625 of 2004) [2007] MWHC 61 (31 January 2007)
The High Court set aside a default judgment because the defendant showed a meritorious defence, but required service of a defence and payment into court within 14 days.
Capital Investment Ltd v Makadia (Civil Cause 495 of 2003) [2003] MWHC 73 (31 December 2003)
The defendant admitted owing arrears in rent and service charges, and no application for stay of proceedings for arbitration was made. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on admissions and summary judgment as the defendant did not show any triable issue or file opposition.
Source excerpt
Kulesi v Royal International Insurance Co. Holdings Ltd (Civil Cause 395 of 1993) [1993] MWHCCiv 41 (29 July 1993)
The High Court stayed insurance proceedings pending arbitration, holding that the policy’s arbitration clause was a condition precedent and time could be extended.
Preferential Trade Area Bank v ESCOM & Ors. (Civil Cause 238 of 2000) [2003] MWHC 74 (22 October 2003)
The applicant solicitors are entitled to costs, but the court cannot order the defendants to pay those costs directly to the solicitors; notice to the defendants suffices to protect the solicitor's lien. Costs must be taxed if not agreed. The amended Legal Practitioners Rules do not override the indemnity principle to allow direct payment or excessive collection costs. Applications for direct payment and to set aside the default judgment are dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
