Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court of Malawi - 2005 November

4 judgments
Advanced search
Skip past Court registries
Skip past years
Skip past months
Filters
Skip to results
4 judgments
November 2005
R v Tione Chavula (Criminal Appeal 93 of 2005) [2005] MWHC 32 (30 November 2005)
Appellant’s 12‑year armed robbery sentence confirmed; 6‑year weapons sentence reduced to 4 years.
  • Criminal Law
    • — Sentencing — Armed robbery and weapons possession — Whether sentences manifestly excessive considering mitigating factors and public protection
    • — Plea of guilty — Discount for guilty plea discretionary — May be withheld in particularly serious or odious offences
30 November 2005
SFFRFM v TAMA (2357 of 1997) [2005] MWHC 17 (21 November 2005)
A consent order is a binding contract and cannot be varied in chambers absent contractual vitiating grounds or a fresh action.
  • Civil Procedure
    • — Consent Orders — Force of a consent order as contract and grounds for variation — Contractual vitiating factors required to set aside consent judgment
    • — Instalment Orders (Courts Act s 11(x)) — Procedure and forum — Application must be made to a judge in open court; variation ordinarily by fresh action
21 November 2005
State v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor.; Ex parte: Dr. Cassim Chilumpha (315 of 2005) [2005] MWHC 126 (21 November 2005)
Court vacated interim injunction and discharged judicial review leave, finding AG a wrong party and immunity question premature for review.
  • Constitutional Law — Immunity of Public Officials — Whether the Vice‑President enjoys criminal immunity under section 91(2) of the Constitution
  • Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Appropriate party and remedy — DPP as proper party; Attorney General not proper defendant; constitutional interpretation vs. review
21 November 2005
State v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor.; Ex Parte: Dr Cassim Chilumpha (315 of 2005) [2005] MWHC 16 (21 November 2005)
Interim injunction and leave for judicial review were vacated because the Attorney General was the wrong party and judicial review was inappropriate.
  • Constitutional Law — Immunity of Office — Whether section 91(2) affords criminal immunity to the Vice‑President — Interpretation versus review
  • Constitutional/Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Proper respondent and forum for challenging prosecutorial decisions — Director of Public Prosecutions v Attorney General
21 November 2005