Joubertina Furnishers (Pty) Ltd t/a Carnival Furnitures v Lilongwe City Mall (41 of 2013) [2013] MWIRC 445 (18 April 2013);

Share

 

 

 

 

 

JUDICIARY

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

 

Misc Civil Cause No. 41 of 2013

 

BETWEEN

JOUBERTINA FURNISHERS (PTY) LIMITED

t/a CARNIVAL FURNITURES                              PLAINTIFF

AND

LILONGWE CITY MALL                             DEFENDANT

CORAM:

JUSTICE  D.  F. MWAUNGULU

Gondwe, Of Counsel, For the Plaintiff

Mwanyongo, Official Court Interpreter

 

Mwaungulu, J

ORDER

In this matter, there is a bit of urgency and emergency in the interlocutory injunction that the plaintiff seeks. The applicant appeared before the Registrar who, apparently, was disposed to abridge the time as long as a judge can hear the matter on Monday. The applicant, not opting to have an injunction without notice, wants this court to abridge the time in a manner that a Judge can hear the matter with the other present on Monday.

I, instead, order that the matter be handled as an ‘opposed ex parte application’ (under the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1965) or ‘opposed applications without notice (under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998). There is some serious discussion based on the way section 29 of the Courts Act is amended about whether it is the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 or the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 that apply to the High Court in Malawi. These discussions arise because the 2004 amendment mentions ‘Rules of the Supreme Court, 1999’ (in England). There have never been ‘Rules of the Supreme Court 1999’ in England. In England, there were ‘Rules of the Supreme Court 1883’,  ‘Rules of the Supreme Court 1965’ and, replacing the latter Rules, ‘Civil Procedure Rules 1998.’

The practice of ‘opposed’ ex parte applications however supersedes the Rules of Court. Under it, the defendant, to assist the judge, attends the ex parte hearing either of the defendant’s own accord or at the tacit or latent invitation of the plaintiff. In Pickwick International Inc. (GB) Ltd v Multiple Sound Distribution Ltd [1972] 3 All E.R. 384 the court held that a successful defendant could be awarded costs. The practice is available under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 in the Supreme Court Judicature in England: see the authors of Civil Procedure Volume 2, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001 ed. Paragraph 1-35(5:21):

“These are applications of which proper notice has not been given to the respondent but which are made in the presence of both parties in advance of a full hearing of the application.”

I, therefore, order that the plaintiff recourse the procedure.

 

Made this 18th Day of April 2013

 

D.F. Mwaungulu