A Judicial Review of Administrative Act in Malawi: A Critical Analysis of the Role of

Judicial Review in Promoting Constitutionalism

BY

David A.K Bandawe, LLM (London)

LECTURER IN LAW , CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI

Paper presented at the Staff/student Seminar of the Faculty of Law, Catholic

University of Malawi held on…………at ……………………..2023
1. INTRODUCTION

Judicial review of administrative action (hereafter ‘JRAA’) is a public law remedy

whereby a person seeks to establish that a decision of a public body or public officer
has infringed rights which he/she is entitled to protection under public law. 1 The
JRAA process empowers the courts to hold public authorities to account for the
legality of their conduct.2 It ensures that the officials and bureaucrats who exercise
public power are subject to the law, rather than being a law unto themselves. 3 An
effectively functioning JRAA system is central to the doctrine of rule of law and
constitutionalism as it requires government to justify its powers by reference to the
Constitution or statute, and to conform to basic procedural standards of justice and
equality.4 JRAA is concerned with reviewing, not the merits of the government
decision the application relates to, but rather whether the decision was within legal
limits and followed broad principles of fairness and rational grounds. 5 Thus the
process involves reviewing actions of the public body or public officer which lack or is
in excess of jurisdiction or authority (illegal), unreasonable, irrational, unfair, and
arbitrary and un-procedural. 6 If a court finds that the allegation has been proved, it
1
Carrol A.(2017). Constitutional & Administrative Law 9ed. Pearson Education Ltd. 339 ;
M.Chigawa. ‘The fundamental values of the Republic of Malawi Constitution’ , The Law Commission
Constitutional Conference Concept Paper. March 2006. available at www.acjr.org.za (accessed on 10
August 2023)

2
State (on application of Steven Mponda) v President of Malawi (HC) unreported case no 13/2020
( 7 April 2020). available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 5 August 2023) ; Alder, J. (2002).
General Principles of Constitutional & Administrative Law 4ed. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 363

3
State(on application of Kezzie Msukwa) v Director of The Anti Corruption Bureau (HC) unreported
case no 54/2021 ( 30 May 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 1 August 2023) ;
Beerman, J. M.(2011). Inside Administrative Law : What matters and why.: Aspen Publishers. 115 ;
Fordham M et al ‘Streamlining judicial review in a manner consistent with the rule of law’ (2014) 6
Judicial Review.
73

4
Alder, J (2002). General Principles of Constitutional & Administrative Law 4 ed. Palgrave Macmillan
Ltd. 2002. 363

5
State (on application of Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority ) v The Ombudsman (HC)
unreported case
no 60/2021 ( 27 December 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 1 August 2023)

6
State (on application of Horace Phiri and 2 Others) v Council of Lilongwe University of
Agriculture and Natural (LUANAR) (HC) unreported case no 129/2019 ( 25 March 2019)
available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 13 June 2023) ; S Wojciech ‘Judicial review
can make a number of possible orders to rectify the situation such as a quashing
order, a mandatory order or a prohibition order. 7 The court can also grant an
injunction or a declaratory order.

The JRAA process is claimant driven, and because of this the client expects success
from the proceedings and the recovery of costs incurred. 8 However, there is
anecdotal evidence that quite a number of cases which have been brought to court
over the past few years have been dismissed with costs which could suggest that
there is a lack of understanding of key elements of the JRAA process by both
lawyers as well as the client.9 This paper will analyse the various elements of the
JRAA process as a way of creating a nuanced understanding of this concept and its
role of promoting constitutionalism in Malawi.

2. THE CONSTITUTION

Malawi has a written Constitution and one of its values is its supremacy which is
enshrined in sections 4, 5, 8 and 48(2). The Constitution is a key source of the JRAA
process which is incorporated in several provisions. 10 For instance section 108(2)
provides that the High Court has original jurisdiction to review any action or decision

and the Protection of constitutional rights’ (2002) 22(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 284

7
State (on application of Aero Plastic Industries Ltd) v Director of Environmental Affairs (MSCA)
unreported case no 19/2019 ( 31 July 2019) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August
2023) ; State (on application of Jane Kennedy and others) v President of Malawi (HC) unreported case
no 3/2021 ( 25 June 2021) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August 2023) ; Leyland, P.,
and Anthony, G. (2009). Textbook on Administrative law 7 ed. Oxford University Press. 430

8
J.Halford, ‘ Strategy in Judicial Review: Using the Procedure to the Claimant's Advantage’ (2006) 11: 2
Judicial Review. 153

9
State (on application of HM(guardian) on behalf of CM (minor) v Director QECH & Min of Health
(HC) unreported case no 5/2006 ( 15 June 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11
June 2023) ; State (on application of Enock Chihana and 3 others v The President & Attorney General
(HC) unreported case no 86/2015 ( 12 January 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on
5 June 2023) ; State (on application of Jack Thabwa and 26 others) v Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd
(HC) unreported case no 3/2018 ( 22 May 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 12
June 2022)

10
State(on application of Pemphero Mphande and Others) v Blantyre City Council & Others) (HC)
unreported case no 137/2018 ( 31 July 2019) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August
2023) ; J.Ansah , The 1994 Malawi Constitution and the role of the judiciary. The Law Commission
Concept Paper, March 2006. available at www.acjr.org.za (accessed on 10 August 2023)
of the Government for conformity with the Constitution. 11 Similarly, section 11(3)
provides that a court can declare an executive action as invalid if it is inconsistent
with the Constitution.12 Section 12 also states that those who have executive power
should be accountable, act lawfully and in good faith. 13 Furthermore, section 43
incorporates principles of natural justice which are embodied in the fundamental
principle audi alterem partem. According to this section every person has the right to
lawful and procedurally fair administrative action, and should be furnished with
reasons for an administrative action which affects his or her right. 14

3. GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

The substantive and procedural requirements for the JRAA process are contained in
Order 19 rule 20 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 (hereafter
‘CPR’) .15 Order 19 rule 20(1) states that judicial review shall cover the review of : (a)
a law, an action or a decision of the Government or a public officer for conformity

11
Reserve Bank of Malawi & others v Attorney General (CC) unreported case no 5/2010 ( 12 June
2013) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 30 July 2023) ; State (on application of Gable
Masangano and others) v Attorney General (CC) unreported case no 15/2007 ( 9 November 2009)
available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 10 June 2023) ; State (on application of Chris Chaima
Banda) v Republic (Anti Corruption Bureau) and Attorney General (HC) unreported case no 10/2022
( 25 May 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 10 August 2023)

12
State(on application of Cassim Chilumpha) v DPP & Others (CC) unreported case no 5/2006 ( 6
November 2006) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11 June 2023) ; State(on
application of Nyozama Gondwe) and 5 years) v Council of Mzuzu University (HC) unreported case no
1/2012 ( 25 May 2012) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11 June 2023)

13
State(on application of HM (guardian) on behalf of CM (minor) v Director QECH & Min of Health
Exparte) (HC) unreported case no 5/2006 ( 15 June 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 11 June 2023); State(on application of University of Malawi Workers Trade Union) v
Council, University of Malawi (HC) unreported case no 1/2015 ( 2 March 2015) available at
www.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023)

14
State (on application of Chief Masseah) v Chief Katunga (HC) unreported case no 44/2017 ( 28 July
2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11 June 2023) ; State (on application of Enock
Chihana and 3 others v The President & Attorney General (HC) unreported case no 86/2015 ( 12
January 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 5 June 2023) ; State(on application of
Gift Tranpence and Timothy Mtambo) v DPP (HC) unreported case no 16/2016 ( 25 April 2016)
available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023)

15
State(on application of Kezzie Msukwa) v Director of The Anti Corruption Bureau (HC) unreported
case no 16/2021 ( 1 January 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2022) ;
State (on application of Admarc Ltd) v The Ombudsman (HC) unreported case no 137/2018 ( 23 June
2021) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023) ; O Reilly vs.Mackman [1983] AC
237
with the Constitution; or (b) a decision, action, failure to act in relation to the exercise
of a public function in order to determine: (i) its lawfulness; (ii) its procedural fairness;
(iii) its justification of the reasons provided, if any; and (iv) bad faith, if any, where a
right, freedom, interests or legitimate expectation of the applicant is affected or
threatened.

3.1 Unconstitutionality of action/decision which affects a person’s right,

freedom or legitimate expectation {Order 19 rule 20(1)(a)}

According to the CPR, one of the substantive requirement for the JRAA process is
that the court will review an action or decision of a government body or public officer
for conformity with the Constitution. 16 Thus where the court concludes that the
action or decision is not in conformity with a constitutional provision, it could be
declared as illegal, unconstitutional and quashed or dealt with through an
appropriate order. Therefore, it is important that before commencing judicial review
proceedings, the unconstitutional nature or illegality of the allegation should be
scrutinised to avoid the action being dismissed. One case which was dismissed
because the claim lacked merit on the illegality of the decision was the State (on
application of Hon Shadreck Namalomba) v Leader of Opposition (Hon
Kondwani Nankhumwa) and Speaker of the National Assembly. 17 In this case
the applicant Namalomba applied for judicial review and for an interlocutory
injunction restraining the respondent, who was leader of opposition in Parliament,
from implementing a decision allocating the applicant seat 99 and later 100 in the
National Assembly. He contended that the decision was ultra vires the powers of the
respondent (as leader of opposition), and that he acted unlawfully and unreasonably.
The claim was dismissed with costs as the court found that there was nothing illegal
or unconstitutional about the allocation of the seat to the applicant, since under
section 53 (5) and (6) of the Constitution, as read together with Standing Order
39(1), the responsibility of allocating seats in the National Assembly lies with the
Speaker or Deputy speaker who are supposed to act freely in discharging their
duties in Parliament such as allocating seats to parliamentarians.

16
Order 19 rule 20(1)(a) of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017

17
(HC) unreported case no 5/2022 ( 16 June 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 15
August 2023
In the State (on application of the Human Rights Defenders Coalition and
Others) v The President of the Republic of Malawi and Secretary to the
President and Cabinet (SPC)18 the Court held that the action of the respondents
was illegal for violating the Constitution. In this case the President of Malawi and the
Secretary to the President and Cabinet (SPC) attempted to forcibly send on leave
the then Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda SC and Justice of Appeal Edward Twea SC
pending retirement. The Defendants argued that since the two had accumulated
many leave days, they should proceed on leave pending retirement. The applicants
(HRDC) and other human rights organizations applied for judicial review arguing that
the President and SPC’s action was illegal, in bad faith, politically motivated and a
violation of the Constitution which upholds the separation of powers among the three
organs of government. They argued that sending the two judges was a violation of
Sections 111 and 119 of the Constitution which regulate the appointment and
removal of judges. The Court agreed with the Applicants and quashed the decision
with costs.

3.2 Review of lawfulness of a decision , action or failure to act in relation to

the exercise of a public function {Order 19 rule 20(1)(b(i))}

According to the CPR Order 19 rule 20(1)(b)(i) a court could also review the
lawfulness of a decision , action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public
function. A case where the court reviewed this element was the State (on
application by HM (guardian) on behalf of CM (minor) v Hospital Director of
Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital (‘Queens’) and Ministry of Health. 19
The brief
facts of the case were that the applicant was a 15 year old minor who was made
pregnant by a man who subsequently rejected the pregnancy because he was
already married with two children. Because of this development, the minor suffered
from depression and attempted to commit suicide. The brother of the minor then
approached Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital to terminate the pregnancy in
accordance with section 243 of the Penal Code which permits a medical officer to
assist in the termination of a pregnancy if the mother’s heath is at risk. The medical

18
(HC) unreported case no 33/2020 ( 27 August 2020) available at www.old malawilii.org (accessed on
19 June 2022)

19
(HC) unreported case no 3/2021 ( 15 June 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17
June 2022)
officer at Queens refused to carry out the procedure arguing that in terms of section
243 of the Penal Code there was no evidence that the mother’s health was at risk.
The applicant sought judicial review arguing that the hospital’s decision was unlawful
and unreasonable because the medical condition of the mother entitled her to be
assisted by the hospital with the termination. The Court declined to grant permission
for judicial review because there was nothing unlawful about the refusal of the
medical personnel at Queens as there was indeed no evidence showing that the
mother’s health was at risk as required by section 243 of the Penal Code. The claim
was dismissed with costs.

A case where the court held that the failure by a public officer to exercise a public
function was unlawful and a violation of a statute (Prisons Act) is the State (on
application by Gable Masangano) v AG, Minister of Home Affairs and
Commissioner of Prisons.20 In this case the Applicant was serving a 12 year
prison term at Domasi Prison. He sought judicial review for illegality by the prison
authorities because prisoners at Domasi Prison were being deprived of some basic
needs which they were entitled to under the Prisons Act. He argued that the
prisoners were being given nsima with peas or beans once a day on a daily basis,
and there was no breakfast. He also argued that there was overcrowding and poor
ventilation in the prison cells which was illegal as it was contrary to the 3rd Schedule
of the Prison Regulations in the Prisons Act Cap 9:02 The court agreed with the
arguments of the applicant and held that the prison condition such as insufficient
food, overcrowding and poor ventilation as detailed by the applicant amounted to
inhuman and degrading treatment which was contrary to Section 19 and 42 of the
Republic of Malawi Constitution and a violation of the Prisons Act. Thus the court
ordered the Respondents to take concrete steps in reducing prison overcrowding by
half to eliminate overcrowding, and to improve the ventilation in prisons and to
generally improve prison conditions.

3.3 Review of procedural fairness of a decision, action or failure to act in

relation to the exercise of a public function {Order 19 rule 20(1)(b)(ii))}

According to order 19 rule 20(1)(b)(ii) a decision, action or failure to exercise a public

20
(CC) unreported case no 15/2007 ( 9 November 2009) available at www.malawilii.org
(accessed on 20 June 2022)
function could be reviewed for procedural fairness. This was one of the issues in
contention in the State (on application of M Fatchi ) v Principal Secretary for
Commerce and Industry and Malawi Revenue Authority. 21 In this case the
applicant was granted a licence on 13th September 2002 to import 200 metric tons
of sugar from Zimbabwe into Malawi.  The licence was granted for a duration to
terminate on 13th December 2002.  Acting upon this authority, the applicant bought
200 metric tons of the sugar and transported it into Malawi through Mwanza border.  
The Malawi Revenue Authority refused to process customs formalities because they
had information that the importation licence of the applicant had been cancelled by
the Ministry of Trade. The applicant was disturbed with the apparent cancellation of
his licence and approached the first respondent for an explanation on why the
licence was cancelled without the authorities giving him reasons for doing so, and
without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Following the first respondent’s failure
to respond, the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings because he felt
that his right for a fair administrative procedure granted by section 43 of the
Constitution had been violated. The Court agreed with the applicant and held that the
applicant’s right to fair administrative action under section 43 of the Constitution had
indeed been violated because the cancellation of the licence was made without
giving reasons in writing for administrative action. The Court then quashed the
decision of the Ministry and ordered that sugar be released to the applicant and that
second respondent should proceed to attend to customs formalities pertaining to the
sugar.

3.4 Review of a decision/action or failure to act to determine its justification

or bad faith {Order 19 rule 20(1)(b)(iii) and (iv)}

A decision of a public body / authority or a public officer could be impugned if it is

unreasonable or unjustified.22 This principle is frequently used as a general
description of things that must not be done. 23 For instance, a person entrusted with
discretion must direct himself properly in law. 24 He must call his attention to matters
21
(HC) unreported case no 168/2002 ( 6 December 2002) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 19 June 2023)

22
Carroll, A. (2017) Constitutional & Administrative Law 9 ed. Pearson Education Ltd 362

23
Leyland, P., and Anthony, G. (2009). Textbook on Administrative law 7 ed. Oxford University Press.
438

24
Beerman, J. M.(2011). Inside Administrative Law : What matters and why.: Aspen Publishers. 129
he is bound to consider. If he does not obey these rules he is said to be acting
unreasonably, unjustified and in bad faith. 25 This principle is contained in Order 19
rule 20(1)(b)(iii) which provides that a decision is amenable for judicial review if its
reasons are not justified. The reasonableness principle (which is also referred to as
the ‘Wednesbury principle’) has its roots in the case of Associated Provincial
Picture House Limited v Wednesbury Corporation. 26 In this case Lord Green MR
stated that ‘decisions of persons or bodies performing public duties or function will
be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial
review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no such
person or body properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably
could have reached that decision.

In the State (on application by Kamlepo Kalua) v Inspector General of Police

and Commissioner General of Malawi Revenue Authority 27 the applicant argued
that the decision of the defendant of searching his house was
unreasonable/unjustified and in bad faith and therefore should be quashed. The
applicant sought judicial review of the defendants’ action of searching his house
where it was believed that he was keeping some imported vehicles for his son which
had not been cleared for import tax by the Malawi Revenue Authority. The Court
dismissed the application because there was nothing latently and glaringly out of
order with the process the defendants had undertaken of searching the applicant’s
premises.

In the State (On application of Thandiwe Okeke) v Director Minister of Home

Affairs and Controller of Immigration.28 the Court quashed the decision of the
defendant for being unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. In this case the
applicant was married to a Nigerian man and were both residing in Malawi. The
husband went to Nigeria and upon his return to Malawi through Kamuzu International

25
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223 (per Lord
Green)

26
[1948] 2 KB 223.

27
(HC) unreported case no 24/2017 ( 22 May 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 19 June 2023)

28
(HC) unreported case no 19/2020 ( 6 April 2020) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 23
June 2023)
Airport, he was detained and deported back to Nigeria. The reason given by the
Immigration officials was that Nigerians cause trouble in Malawi by bringing fake
foreign currency, and also that Mr Okeke needed a visa to enter Malawi. The
applicant sought judicial review arguing among other issues that the reasons for her
husband’s deportation were unreasonable and in bad faith. The Court agreed with
the applicant and held that the reasons for the deportation of Mr Okeke were
unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense because the Chief Immigration Officer
should have considered the applicant’s rights before deporting the husband, and
also according to the schedule to the Immigration Act, Nigeria is one of the countries
whose citizens do not need a visa to enter Malawi.

4. BRINGING AN ACTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

According to the CPR there are some rules which need to be adhered to when
making an application for judicial review, otherwise chances are that the application
could be dismissed.

4.1 The person intended to be made a respondent should be amenable to

judicial review. {Order 19 rule 20(1)(a)}.

Before an application for judicial review is made, it is important for the applicant to
ascertain that the person intended to be made a respondent is amenable to judicial
review, because according to Order 19 rule 20(1)(a) of the CPR the decision should
have been made by a government or a public officer. 29 In the State (on application
of Kezzie Msukwa) v The Director of Anti Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’) 30
the
Court held that the decision made by the Director General (DG) of ACB to arrest the
applicant on corruption allegations under the Corrupt Practices Act was amenable to
judicial review because in terms of section 4 of the Corrupt Practices Act, ACB is a
Government Department whose finances are charged to the Consolidated Fund, and
the DG of the Bureau made the decision.
29
State (on application of Phindu Tobacco Growers Association et al) v Tobacco Commission (HC)
unreported case no 15/2021 ( 15 May 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 15
August 2023) ; Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40 ; R v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex
parte Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER 853

30
(HC) unreported case no 16/2021 ( 1 January 2022) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 14
July 2023)
It is also important to ascertain that the respondent made the decision which is the
subject of judicial review in the action. This aspect was considered in The State (On
the application of Pemphero Mphande and Mkotama Katenga Kaunda) v
Blantyre City Council (‘BCC’) 31 where the Attorney General (‘AG’), who was a
second defendant in that case, was discharged from the proceedings because in
line with Order 19 Rule 23 (2) (c) of the CPR, the decision that was the subject of
judicial review in the action was not made by him. In that case the applicants were
challenging BCC’s decision to erect a statute of Mahatma Ghandi at a strategic spot
near Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre despite the fact that he was a
known racist. They argued that the decision was a violation of section 19 of the
Constitution.

4.2 Leave of the Court - Order 19 rule 20(3)

Order 19 rule 20(3) provides that a claimant should first seek leave of the court
through an ex-parte application before the commencement of judicial review
proceedings.32 However, upon hearing the ex parte application, the Court could
direct an inter-partes hearing. 33
In the State (on application of Zuneth Satter) v
Director of Anti Corruption Bureau and Attorney General. 34 The Court declined
to give the applicant permission for judicial review as required by Order 19 rule 20(3)
of the CPR. In this case the claimant sought permission to apply for the judicial
review of the defendants action arguing that ACB acted unlawfully because under
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Designation of Authority) Order as read
together with section 122 (2) and 126 of the Financial Crimes Act, ACB did not have
authority to assist the United Kingdom in obtaining evidence or information in
Malawi concerning alleged criminal acts committed by the Applicant as the
31
(HC) unreported case no 137/2018 ( 29 April 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on
29 April 2023)

32
Order 19 rule 20(3) of the CPR states that “ Subject to sub-rule (3), an application for judicial review
shall be commenced ex-parte with the permission of the Court.” (emphasis supplied). ; State (on
application of Richard Makondi) v Director of the Anti Corruption Bureau (HC) unreported case no
4/2018 ( 10 May 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 13 August 2023)

33
Order 19 rule 20(4) of the CPR

34
(HC) unreported case no 68/2021 ( 24 November 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed
on 13 August 2023)
competent authority to do so was the Attorney General. After going through the
evidence as per the sworn statement, the court dismissed the application for being
speculative and declined to give permission.

4.3 Applicant should have sufficient interest (locus standi)- {Order 19 rule
20(2)}

According to Order 19 rule 20(2) a person making an application for judicial review
should have sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. 35 A
person with sufficient interest is one who has a direct personal interest in the relief
he/she is seeking. If the interest is not direct or personal but is a general or public
interest, it is the duty of the court to determine whether he or she has the requisite
standing to apply for judicial relief. 36 This requirement was considered in the State
(on application of Mundango Nyirenda and Centre for Democracy and
Economic Development Initiatives (CDEDI) v Minister of the Malawi
Government Responsible for Health and 3 others 37 where the court dismissed
the application for judicial review because the applicants did not have sufficient
interest in the matter. In this case the Applicants sought permission from the court for
judicial review of the legality of the Respondents’ alleged intention to introduce
mandatory COVID19 vaccination by January, 2022 to all public servants, frontline
workers and those working in the social sector including journalists. The Applicants
argued that the intended decision was a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of Republic of Malawi, arbitrary , unreasonable in the
wednesbury sense and ultra vires. However, the Applicants were unable to prove
that the Respondent intended to introduce the mandatory COVID19 vaccination, and
how they would be affected. The Court dismissed the application with costs. 38

35
R v. Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC
617 ; Taylor,C. (2008). Constitutional and Administrative Law, Pearson Education Limited

36
R v Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn [1976] 1 WLR 550 ; Carrol. A (2017). Constitutional
& Administrative Law 9 ed, Pearson Education Ltd. 339

37
(HC) unreported case no 66/2021 ( 13 January 2022) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 13
June 2023)

38
R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329,
4.3 Applicant should have an arguable or prima facie case.

Before a court grants permission for judicial review, it has to be satisfied that there is
a prima facie case fit for further investigations at the intended judicial review
proceedings, or that the case deserves further probe at a full inter-partes hearing. 39
This process serves to eliminate frivolous, vexatious or hopeless applications for
judicial review without the need for a substantive inter-partes judicial review
hearing.40 For instance in the State (on the application of Charles Makhreza and
28 others) v Director for Ministry of Transport and Public Works 41
the Court
declined to grant leave or permission for judicial review because the facts did not
disclose any need for a substantive judicial review at an inter-partes hearing. The
facts were that the Applicant together with twenty eight others had applied for the
post of Assistant Road Traffic Officers at the Respondent department. The
Applicants alleged that they attended interviews and were successful, but for no
apparent reason the Respondent reversed its decision without giving them the right
to defend themselves in line with section 43 of the Constitution. The Court declined
to give permission for judicial review because there were no credible facts to support
the assertion that the Respondents were picked for the position and the evidence
adduced was self - contradictory.

In the State (on application of Edward Sawerengera and 8 others) v Principal

Secretary42 the Applicants’ application for permission to commence JRAA
proceedings against the Respondent was rejected because it was hopeless and did
not deserve further probe at a full inter-partes hearing. In this case the Applicants
were former Malawi diplomats based in the United States of America (USA).
Following the end of their contracts, they were recalled and advised to release their
personal effects to a shipping company (Universal Freight Solutions) for storage in a
warehouse as Government arranged for the shipment of the same to Malawi. The

39
Ombudsman v Malawi Broadcasting Corporation [1999] MLR 329 ; Inland Revenue Commissioners v
National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited [ 1981] 2 All ER 93.

40
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Swati [1986] 1 WLR 477.

41
(HC) unreported case no 131/2018 ( 11 May 2018) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 39
June 2023)

42
(HC) unreported case no 3/2022 ( 20 January 2022) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 15
June 2023)
Applicants objected to this arrangement for fear of losing their effects. The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs insisted that they should deposit their effects with the shipping
company and immediately return to Malawi, and that if they did not comply their
diplomatic status would be revoked. The Applicants sought an injunction and leave
for judicial review arguing that the Ministry’s decision was unconstitutional as it was a
violation of the Applicants’ right to property under section 28. The Court dismissed
the application on the basis that the Claimants had not established adequate legal
grounds for the grant of the reliefs ought. It was the Court’s considered view that
there was no serious issue for further inquiry in a judicial review proceeding. It was
also observed since that the only issue in contention wathe safety of the Applicants’
personal effects which, if a proper record was maintained, could adequately be
remedied by way of damages in case of partial or even total loss, judicial review
proceedings were not necessary.

4.4 The application must be made promptly {Order 19 rule 20(5)}

According to rule Order 19 rule 20(5) and (6) of the CPR, an application for judicial
review must be filed promptly not later than 3 months of the decision, but the Court
may extend the period. In Horace Phiri and 2 Others v Council of Lilongwe
University of Agriculture and Natural (LUANAR)43 the Court granted permission
for judicial review, and dismissed the Respondent’s argument that the application
had been filed outside the required three months period from when the decision was
made. In this case the applicants challenged the decision of LUANAR Council of not
promoting them to senior positions even though they had fulfilled the requirements of
the university rules by publishing the required number of articles in designated
journals. The reasons for the council’s decision was that the Applicants’ articles had
been published in journals which had been blacklisted, but the Applicants and other
employees had not been advised about the blacklisting of the journals. The
Applicants lodged a formal complaint to the Appeals Committee of the Council in
June, 2018, which upheld the Councils decision not to promote them, and notified
the Applicants on 18th November,2018. The Applicants were dissatisfied with the
decision and filed an application for judicial review on 20 th December, 2018. One of
the arguments raised by the Respondents was that the Applicants had not filed the
43
(HC) unreported case no 129/2019 ( 25 March 2019) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 13
June 2023)
court process within the required three months and therefore it should be dismissed.
The Court dismissed this argument and held that although the appeal was made in
June,2018 the applicants could not have filed an application with the courts until
when the appeal committee had made its decision known which was in
November,2018. The Court noted that since the court process was made in
December, 2018 (which was one month from the decision of the appeals committee
of the council) the application was made within the required three months.

4.5 The applicant should not have an alternative remedy or avenue that would
resolve his/ her complaint.

A court will not grant permission for judicial review if the applicant has an alternative
remedy to resolve the complaint. One of the cases where the court declined to give
permission because the applicant had an alternative remedy is the State (on the
application of Richard Makondi) v Director General of the Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB)44 In this case the applicant was a former National Sales and
Marketing Manager of Toyota Malawi and was being prosecuted by ACB for his
involvement in the awarding of a contract by the Malawi Defence Force to Toyota
Malawi for the supply of 35 motor vehicles which was corruptly done. The Applicant
sought permission to commence judicial review proceedings because ACB was
taking too long to prosecute him following his arrest. The Court held that permission
would not be granted since the Applicant still had the option of seeking the court
intervention in the same matter to have him discharged for want of prosecution.

5. REMEDIES {Order 19 rule 21)

Remedies in judicial review cases are discretionary because the court may take into
account various factors when granting the remedies such as delay in seeking the
remedy, the futility or uselessness of granting it, and the hardship the order may
cause to others by granting it. 45 Thus a court could grant the substantive remedies
of a quashing order,46 mandatory order and prohibition order which are provided for
44
(HC) unreported case no 4/2018 ( 10 May 2018) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 1 July
2023)

45
R v Liverpool Corporation , exp Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association [1972] 2 QB 299 ;
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997

46
Kalumo v Attorney General [1995] 2 MLR 669 ; Du Chisiza v Minister of Education [1993] 16(1) MLR
in Order 19 rule 21 of the CPR.47 In a JRAA action a claimant may also apply for the
remedies of a declaratory order and an injunction which are also available in an
ordinary legal action.48

5.1 Quashing Orders

Quashing orders are the most commonly sought remedy. The effect of the order is
to quash, reject or declare as unlawful acts or decisions of public bodies or officers.
In the State (on the application of Joseph Makwiti (on his own behalf and on
behalf of Lupando Clan), and Zione Laisan) v Chiradzulu District
Commissioner49 the Court found that the decision of the Chiradzulu District
Commissioner was made illegally or ultra vires and was quashed. The brief facts
were that there was a dispute over the village headship of Tawakali village between
two factions of the royal family. The Applicants (Joseph Makwiti and Zione Laisan)
were at loggerheads with William Laisan over who was the rightful heir to village
headship of Tawakali. The Chiradzulu District Commissioner (‘DC’) set up an
Appellate Tribunal of Chiefs in the area to resolve the dispute, which ruled in favour
of William Laisan as village headman. The Applicant commenced the judicial review
proceedings arguing that in terms of the Chiefs Act, the DC did not have powers to
set up the tribunal or determine any issues pertaining to the wrangle. The Court
agreed with the applicant and held that the District Commissioner had no legal
authority under the Chiefs Act to constitute this Appellate Tribunal, and that the
decision was unlawful and unreasonable within the Wednesbury sense and
therefore ultra vires. The court then made an order quashing

81

47
Order 19 rule 21 states that : “ An application for a mandatory order, a prohibiting order or a quashing
order shall be made with an application to the Court for judicial review.” ; State (on application of
Africa Fertilizer Ltd) v Malawi Bureau of Standard (HC) unreported case no 19/2021 ( 9 December
2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 15 August 2023). ; At common law these are
referred to as the prerogative writs of Mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.

48
Order 19 rule 22 states that : “An application for a declaration or an injunction shall be made with an
application to the Court for judicial review and the Court may grant a declaration or injunction where it
considers that it would be in the interests of justice to do so having regard to (a) the nature of the matter
in which relief may be granted by a mandatory order, a prohibiting order or a quashing order; (b) the
nature of the person or institution against whom relief may be granted by such an order; and (c) all the
circumstances of the case.”

49
(HC) unreported case no 92/2016 (30 July 2019) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 21
June 2023)
the DC’s decision.

Another case where a quashing order was granted is State (on application of
Africa
Fertilizer Ltd) v Malawi Bureau of Standard. 50
In this case the Applicants were
importers and sellers of fertiliser throughout Malawi. In April 2021 they imported
fertiliser in several batches and asked the defendant for certification which they did.
The applicant then sent the fertiliser to various Chipuku Stores throughout the
country’s for selling. After a month, the defendant advised the Applicant that three
batches were defective and that the applicant should advise Chipiku Stores to stop
selling these batches which should be recalled. The applicant was not amused with
this decision and sought a quashing order arguing that the Defendant's decision was
unconstitutional and unreasonable as it was made without hearing the Claimant
which was a violation of the right to be heard under section 43 of the Constitution.
The Court agreed with the Applicant and quashed the decision with costs.

5.2 Mandatory Orders

A mandatory order in the JRAA process compels public authorities to fulfil their
duties where there is wrongful failure to act, and failure to comply is punishable as a
51
contempt of court. Such an order was granted to the Applicants in the State (on
application of University of Malawi Workers Trade Union ) v Council of
University of Malawi.52 In this case the Applicants went on strike to force the
defendants for a salary increase, which the defendant rejected and argued that since
the strike was illegal, the salary of the striking staff would be withhold for the entire
period of the strike. The Applicants sought judicial review arguing that the
Respondent action was unlawful, and for a mandatory order for the withheld salaries
to be paid. The Court agreed with the Applicants and held that the Respondent’s
resolution and decision that salaries of the employees who were on strike should be
deducted and withheld was unreasonable and ultra vires the powers and/or rights of

50
(HC) unreported case no 19/2021 ( 9 December 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed
on 15 August 2023)

51
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997

52
(HC) unreported case no 1/2015 ( 27 July 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 16
August 2023)
the Respondent and therefore illegal. The Court therefore ordered that the
Respondent should immediately pay all its employees that were affected by its
decision to deduct and withhold the salaries.

A mandatory order was also granted in Dr.Jessie Kabwila (candidate) v Electoral

Commission (‘MEC’).53 The issue in dispute was that during the 2014 Parliamentary
Elections, MEC purportedly rejected Dr. Kabwila’s nomination as a candidate to
contest as a Member of the National Assembly for Salima Northwest, and did not
publish her name as required by the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act
(‘PPEA’). The main reason for MEC’s action was that Dr Kabwila (who was a
lecturer at the University of Malawi) was a senior civil servant and therefore
prohibited by section 193 of the Constitution from directly participating in politics. The
Court disagreed with MEC and held that although Dr. Kabwila was a public officer in
the civil service, she was exempted by section 193 (2) (c) as read with section 193
(2) (a) of the Constitution because she was not a civil servant whose functions were
directly concerned with the formulation and administration of the policies of
Government. The Court further observed that it was not necessary for her to resign
because at the time of presentation of the nomination papers, she was not holding a
public office as she was on a leave of absence which was in essence a termination
of employment. The Court held that MEC exceeded its powers under the PPEA by
rejecting a valid nomination, and ordered that it should accept the nomination and
publish her name as required under the PPEA.

5.3 Prohibiting Orders

Prohibiting orders are anticipatory in effect or they are issued in advance to prevent a public
body from exceeding its jurisdiction. In the State (on application of Mundango
Nyirenda and Centre for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives
(CDEDI) v Ministry of the Malawi Government Responsible for Health and
others54 the Applicants sought a prohibition order to prevent Government from
introducing mandatory COVID19 vaccination by January, 2022 to all public servants,
frontline workers and those working in the social sector including journalists . The

53
(HC) unreported case no 2/2014 ( 14 April 2014) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 16
August 2023)

54
(HC) unreported case no 66/2021 ( 13 January 2022) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 13
June 2023)
order was declined because there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the
allegation. In R v Liverpool Corporation, ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators
Association55 the respondents decided to issue some new taxi licences in breach of
an assurance that there would be a cap on licences. Existing licence holders
opposed the proposed course of action, due to a threat to their businesses. The
Court agreed with the applicants and issued a prohibition order preventing the
respondent from introducing the new licences.

5.4 Declaratory order

A declaratory order (or declaration) is a statement made by a court clarifying the law
, or the rights and obligations of one party to another. 56 The courts hold a traditional
power to make declarations on any subject. 57 In a JRAA process courts use
declarations as equitable remedies against unconstitutional government action. 58

5.5 Injunctions

An injunction restrains a government or public officer person from breaking the law
(prohibitory injunction), or to undo something done unlawfully (mandatory injunction).
59
Pending a full trial, a court can grant an interim injunction to restrain government
action until the matter is disposed at a full trial. Where such an injunction is granted,
the court applies a three stage test: (i) has the claimant shown prima facie that there
is a ‘serious issue to be tried’? (ii) would damages be adequate remedy, if the act
were carried out? (ii) the court applies a balance of convenience test by considering
the implications for both parties.60
55
[1968] AC 997

56
State (on application of Indo Africa Distilleries Company Ltd ) v Malawi Revenue Authority (HC)
unreported case no 3/2021 (28 January 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17
August 2023) ; Webster v Southwark Borough Council [1983] QB 698) ; Blackburn v Attorney-General
[1971] 1 WLR 1037

57
State (on application of National Library Service Board) v Ombudsman (HC) unreported case no
62/2020 (3 August 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 August 2023)

58
State (on application of Ziliro Qabaniso Chibambo) [2007] MLR 372 ; Blackburn v Attorney-General
[1971] 1 WLR 1037,

59
Attorney-General v Bastow [1957] 1 QB 514 (a mandatory injunction was issued to remove caravans
from
land which had been put there without planning permission) ; M. v. Home Office [1993] 4 All ER 537 ;
R. v. Minister of Agriculture ex parte Monsanto Plc [1998]4 All ER 321

60
State (on application of Jack Thabwa and 26 others) v Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi (HC)
unreported case no 3/2018 (22 May 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 August
6. CONCLUSION

Judicial review of administrative action is an important element of constitutionalism

and the rule of law which is incorporated in several provisions of the Constitution. 61 A
key element of the JRAA process is that a person who is aggrieved with a
government decision has the right to ask a court to have it set aside, or to restrain
decision or action. When all the preliminary requirements for bringing an action for
judicial review have been complied with, a court will proceed with the judicial review
process, and if the court is satisfied that the action is unconstitutional, illegal or
unreasonable an appropriate remedy could be granted which could be a quashing
order, a prohibition order or a mandatory order. A court could also grant a
declaratory order or an injunction. It is important for both the lawyer and the client to
be aware of the various elements of this process to avoid the action being dismissed
with costs which ultimately negatively affects the high expectation which a client has
in the process which is to get justice for a wrong done by government bodies or
officers. This paper has analysed the various elements of the JRAA process as a
way of creating a better understanding of this concept and its role of promoting
constitutionalism in Malawi.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.1 Statutes

Malawi Constitution, 1994 (as amended)

Order 19 rule 20 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017

7.2 Cases

Associated Provincial Picture House Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 2 KB 223.

Attorney-General v Bastow [1957] 1 QB 514

Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 1 WLR 1037

2023) ; State (on application Prince Mpata and others) v Lilongwe City Council (HC) unreported case
no 32/2021 (24 August 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 August 2023)

61
Section 108(2) of the Constitution
Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 1 WLR 1037,

Cocks v. Thanet District Council, [1982] 3 All E.R. 1135

Dr.Jessie Kabwila (candidate) v Electoral Commission (‘MEC’) (HC) unreported case no

2/2014 ( 14 April 2014) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 16 August 2023)

Du Chisiza v Minister of Education [1993] 16(1) MLR 81

Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses
Limited [ 1981] 2 All ER 93.

Kalumo v Attorney General [1995] 2 MLR 669

M. v. Home Office [1993] 4 All ER 537

O Reilly vs.Mackman [1983] AC 237

Ombudsman v Malawi Broadcasting Corporation [1999] MLR 329

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997

R v Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn [1976] 1 WLR 550

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329,

R v Liverpool Corporation , exp Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association [1972] 2 QB 299

R v Minister of Agriculture ex parte Monsanto Plc [1998]4 All ER 321

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Swati [1986] 1 WLR 477.

R v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER 853

R v. Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses

[1982] AC 617

Reserve Bank of Malawi & others v Attorney General (CC) unreported case no 5/2010
( 12 June 2013) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 30 July 2023) ;

Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40

State (on application of Chris Chaima Banda) v Republic (Anti Corruption Bureau) and
Attorney General (HC) unreported case no 10/2022 ( 25 May 2022) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 10 August 2023)

State (on application of Gable Masangano) v Attorney General and Others (CC) unreported
case no 15/2007 ( 9 November 2009) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 10 June
2023)

State v Director QECH & Min of Health Exparte HM (guardian) on behalf of CM (minor) (HC)
unreported case no 5/2006 ( 15 June 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on
11 June 2023);
State (on application by Kamlepo Kalua) v Inspector General of Police and Commissioner
General of Malawi Revenue Authority (HC) unreported case no 24/2017 ( 22 May 2018)
available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 19 June 2023)

State (on application of Admarc Ltd) v The Ombudsman (HC) unreported case no
137/2018 ( 23 June 2021) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023)

State (on application of Indo Africa Distilleries Company Ltd ) v Malawi Revenue
Authority (HC) unreported case no 3/2021 (28 January 2022) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 August 2023)

State (on application of Jack Thabwa and 26 others) v Electricity Supply Corporation
Ltd (HC) unreported case no 3/2018 ( 22 May 2018) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023)

State (on application of Kezzie Msukwa) v The Director of Anti Corruption Bureau (‘ACB’)
(HC) unreported case no 16/2021 ( 1 January 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 14 July 2023)

State (on application of M Fatchi ) v Principal Secretary for Commerce and Industry
and Malawi Revenue Authority (HC) unreported case no 168/2002 ( 6 December
2002) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 19 June 2023)

State (on application of Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority ) v The Ombudsman

(HC) unreported case no 60/2021 ( 27 December 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 1 August 2023)

State (on application of National Library Service Board) v Ombudsman (HC)

unreported case no 62/2020 (3 August 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 17 August 2023)

State (on application of Phindu Tobacco Growers Association et al) v Tobacco Commission
(HC) unreported case no 15/2021 ( 15 May 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 15 August 2023)

State (on application of Richard Makondi) v Director of the Anti Corruption Bureau (HC)
unreported case no 4/2018 ( 10 May 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on
13 August 2023)

State (on application of the Human Rights Defenders Coalition and Others) v The President of
the Republic of Malawi and Secretary to the President and Cabinet (SPC) (HC) unreported
case no 33/2020 ( 27 August 2020) available at www.old malawilii.org (accessed on 19 June
2023)
State (on application of University of Malawi Workers Trade Union ) v Council of University of
Malawi (HC) unreported case no 1/2015 ( 27 July 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 16 August 2023)

State (on application of Ziliro Qabaniso Chibambo) v Anti Corruption Bureau [2007] MLR
372

State (on application of Zuneth Satter) v Director of Anti Corruption Bureau and Attorney
General. (HC) unreported case no 68/2021 ( 24 November 2021) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 13 August 2023)

State (on application Prince Mpata and others) v Lilongwe City Council (HC) unreported case
no 32/2021 (24 August 2021) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 August
2023)

State (on the application of Joseph Makwiti (on his own behalf and on behalf of Lupando
Clan), and Zione Laisan) v Chiradzulu District Commissioner (HC) unreported case no
92/2016 (30 July 2019) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 21 June 2023)

State(on application of Pemphero Mphande and others) v Blantyre City Council &
others (HC) unreported case no 137/2018 ( 31 July 2019) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August 2023)

State (on application of Chief Masseh) v Chief Katunga (HC) unreported case no 44/2017 ( 28
July 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11 June 2023)

State(on application of Nyozama and 5 others) v Council of Mzuzu University (HC)

unreported case no 1/2012 ( 25 May 2012) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on
11 June 2023)

State (on application of University of Malawi Workers Trade Union) v Council, University of
Malawi (HC) unreported case no 1/2015 ( 2 March 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org
(accessed on 12 June 2023)

State v (on application of Aero Plastic Industries Ltd) v Director of Environmental

Affairs (MSCA) unreported case no 19/2019 ( 31 July 2019) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August 2023)

State (on application of Kezzie Msukwa) v Director of The Anti Corruption Bureau (HC)
unreported case no 16/2021 ( 1 January 2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed
on 12 June 2022) ;

State (on application by HM (guardian) on behalf of CM (minor) v Hospital Director of Queen

Elizabeth Central Hospital (‘Queens’) and Ministry of Health (HC) unreported case no 3/2021
15 June 2018) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 17 June 2023)

State (on application of Cassim Chilumpha) v DPP & Others (CC) unreported case no 5/2006
(6 November 2006) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 11 June 2023
State (on application of Gift Trapence and Timothey Mtambo) v DPP (HC) unreported case no
16/2016 ( 25 April 2016) available at www.malawilii.org (accessed on 12 June 2023)

State (on application of Steven Mponda ) v President of Malawi (HC) unreported case
no 13/2020 ( 7 April 2020). available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 5
August 2023

State (on application of Enock Chihana and others) v The President & Attorney General (HC)
unreported case no 86/2015 ( 12 January 2015) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed
on 5 June 2023)

State (on application of Jane Kennedy and others) v President of Malawi (HC) unreported
case no 3/2021 ( 25 June 2021) Available at www.old malawilii.org (accessed on 6 August
2023)

State (on application of Edward Sawerengera and 8 others) v Principal Secretary Ministry of
External Affairs (HC) unreported case no 3/2022 ( 20 January 2022) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 15 June 2023)

State (on application of Hon Shadreck Namalomba) v Leader of Opposition (Hon Kondwani
Nankhumwa) and Speaker of the National Assembly (HC) unreported case no 5/2022 ( 16 June
2022) available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 15 August 2023)

State (on application of Horace Phiri and 2 Others) v Council of Lilongwe University of
Agriculture and Natural (LUANAR) (HC) unreported case no 129/2019 ( 25 March 2019)
available at www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 13 June 2023)

State (on application of Mundango Nyirenda and Centre for Democracy and Economic
Development Initiatives (CDEDI) v Ministry of the Malawi Government Responsible for Health
and 3 others (HC) unreported case no 66/2021 ( 13 January 2022) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 13 June 2023)

State (On application of Thandiwe Okeke) v Director Minister of Home Affairs and Controller
of Immigration (HC) unreported case no 19/2020 ( 6 April 2020) available at
www.malawilii.org (accessed on 23 June 2023)

State (on the application of Charles Makhreza and 28 others) v Director for Ministry of
Transport and Public Works (HC) unreported case no 131/2018 ( 11 May 2018) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 30 June 2023)

State (On the application of Pemphero Mphande and Mkotama Katenga Kaunda v Blantyre
City Council (‘BCC’) (HC) unreported case no 137/2018 ( 29 April 2021) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 29 April 2023)

State (on the application of Richard Makondi) v Director General of the Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB) (HC) unreported case no 4/2018 ( 10 May 2018) available at
www.old.malawilii.org (accessed on 1 July 2023)

Webster v Southwark Borough Council [1983] QB 698)

 7.3 Books

Alder, J. (2002). General Principles of Constitutional & Administrative Law 4 ed. Palgrave
Macmillan Ltd.

Beerman, J. M. (2011). Inside Administrative Law : What matters and why. Aspen Publishers.

Carrol ,A.(2017). Constitutional & Administrative Law 9ed. Pearson Education Ltd.

Leyland, P., Anthony, G. (2009). Textbook on Administrative law 7 ed. Oxford University
Press.

7.4 Articles

J.Ansah , ‘The 1994 Malawi Constitution and the role of the judiciary’ Law Commission
Constitutional Concept Paper, March 2006. Available at www.acjr.org.za (accessed on 10 August 2023)

.Chigawa,M. ‘The fundamental values of the Republic of Malawi Constitution’ Law Commission
Constitutional Conference Concept Paper, March 2006. Available at www.acjr.org.za (accessed on 10
August 2023)

Fordham, M. et al ‘Streamlining judicial review in a manner consistent with the rule of law’
(2014) 6 Judicial Law Review.

Halford, J. ‘Strategy in Judicial Review: Using the Procedure to the Claimant's Advantage’
(2006) 11: 2 Judicial Law Review

Wojciech,S. ‘Judicial review and the Protection of constitutional rights’ (2002) 22(2) Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies