The former ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) prides itself as a party that the majority of lawyers in Malawi.
Ironically, the party hardly gets it right when it takes a matter or it is dragged to court.
In the recent case, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has refused to grant the Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika camp of the DPP a stay that would have seen the suspension of the enforcement of the High Court of Malawi order.
The High Court had ordered DPP to hold a convention 90 days. This was after the Kondwani Nankhumwa faction challenged the resolutions of the APM camp made at Nkopola Lodge mid this year.
Judge Simeon Mdeza ruled on 29 September 2023 that the former governing party should conduct duly constituted meetings of the National Governing Council and an elective National Political Conference, popularly referred to as ‘the Convention’, within ninety (90) days from the date of the said ruling.
But the APM camp did not agree with this order; hence, its decision to seek a temporary relief pending an appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
But in his ruling, Justice of Appeal Rowland Mbvundula described the application as premature because the matter was not exhausted by the High Court.
Mbvundula faulted an affidavit in support of the application sworn by DPP National Director of Legal Affairs and lawyer Charles Mhango saying he did inform this Court whether or not the directions allegedly made by the High Court were made to him.
“This is important because the Court must be satisfied that the facts laid before it do not amount to inadmissible hearsay. Nor does the deponent identify the Registry Clerk who allegedly communicated the directions, if indeed made.
“Finally, regarding the requirement under Order 1 rule 18 to the effect that an application over which this Court and the Court below have concurrent jurisdiction can only be brought in this Court only if the Court below refuses the application, it seems evident to me that the said requirement has not been met.
“The imputation by the appellant that the alleged directives of the court below for adjournments amount to a refusal of the application is not appealing. Aside from the fact that the communications are not substantiated, my understanding of the term “refuses” is that of a dismissal of the application. An adjournment not being a dismissal the court below has this far not refused the application,” reads part of the ruling which we have seen.
Meanwhile, the party’s National Governing Council has set December 26 and 27 2023, as dates for the elective national convention.
