Ntande v National Roads Authority (912 of 2006) ((912 of 2006)) [2006] MWHC 120 (25 September 2006);

Share


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL CAUSE NO. 912 OF 2006


BETWEEN:

SUNGANI NTANDE…………………………………..APPLICANT

AND

NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY…………………..RESPONDENT



CORAM: CHOMBO, J

Khonyongwa, Counsel for the Applicant

Hara, Counsel for the Respondent

Chulu, Court Interpreter


R U L I N G


This is an application by the applicant, asking the Court to issue an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from possessing his vehicle.


The action arises from somewhat unfortunate events in which the applicant finds himself. The applicant herein was a purchaser of a vehicle that was subject to a seizure order. He bought the said vehicle on 24th June 2006 through a public action and thereafter successfully changed the ownership with authentic letters from the Trust Auctioneers.


On the 11th July 2006 the applicant was served with a court order that effectively demanded that the Sheriff return all goods seized from one Pastor Kaombe in Civil Cause No. 771 of 2006 registered at the Principal Registry in Blantyre; the said goods included the subject matter of these proceedings. On 4th August 2006 the vehicle was seized from him on the said court order.


This application now is an attempt by the applicant to prevent the defendant from seizing, but if already seized, not to change ownership of the said motor vehicle and have it delivered back to him until the determination of an application for mandatory injunction made by him. The application was supported by an affidavit and skeletal arguments.


The respondent filed an affidavit opposing the said application. Skeletal arguments were also submitted as part of the evidence. In their affidavit the respondent allege that the applicant’s application should be dismissed on the fact that it is an abuse of the court process.


I repeat the fact that the applicant finds himself as a victim of circumstances. Looking at the sequence of events and the law in force the application of the applicant cannot be granted as the effects thereof would tantamount to asking this court to make an order that is inconsistent with the court order of 7th July 2006. It will, therefore, not be necessary to go into further details of the position of the parties.



However, the applicant is not without a remedy, he has every right to proceed against the Trust Auctioneers and recover the sale price and any other costs incidental thereto.


I disallow the application and order that costs be in the cause.


Made in Chambers this 25th September 2006.




E.J. Chombo

JUDGE