- Case indexes > Environmental
- Case indexes > Environmental > Environmental decision-making
- Case indexes > Environmental > Environmental decision-making > Cultural and heritage values in the environment
- Case indexes > Environmental > Human exploitation of the environment
- Case indexes > Environmental > Human exploitation of the environment > Land use
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Procedure
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Procedure > Appeals and reviews
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Procedure > Appeals and reviews > Judicial Review
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Remedies > Injunctions and interdicts > Injunction
- Case summary
This was an appeal against a decision of a magistrate to dismiss the appellant’s claim over a piece of customary land which he claimed was unlawfully in the possession of the second respondent, his son. The appellant had left the village for a long time and upon returning found that the first respondent had constructed a home on his land. The appellant instructed the first respondent to vacate land but he refused and proceeded to sell the land to the second respondent. The appellant told the court below that he inherited the piece of land from his father. The lower court found that the appellant had failed to adduce enough evidence to show that the land belonged to him.
The court had to determine the following: which party had the right of occupation of the land; whether the land was lawfully transferred to the second respondent and whether a permanent injunction could be granted restraining the appellant or the respondents from interfering with the land in question.
The court held that although the land had been given to the first respondent customarily, chiefs must be guided by the law specifically, the Constitution and it was against the law to deprive any person the right to use and occupy customary land without any justification at law. It held that indefinite individual usage and occupation of customary land was therefore permissible under the laws of Malawi and the subsequent transfer was legal. Accordingly, the court upheld the lower court ruling.
This document is 1.8 MB. Do you want to load it?