Attorney General Frank Mbeta has launched an appeal against a High Court ruling in the Malawi Electoral Commission relocation saga, arguing that the court determined a key government application without giving the State a chance to be heard.
Legal storm deepens as AG Mbeta takes MEC relocation fight to appeal court
The appeal, filed by the AG’s Chambers on behalf of the Chief Secretary to Government and the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, challenges a judgment delivered by High Court Judge Kenyatta Nyirenda on August 20, 2026, which threw out the government’s bid to lift a stay of proceedings in the case.
Mbeta confirmed the appeal, taking aim at the judge’s handling of the matter.
“In paragraph 3, the judge determined our application to discharge permission for judicial review without a hearing on that application,” he said.
According to the Notice of Appeal, the AG’s team argues the judge erred by ruling on the application to vacate leave without hearing the applicants, and by finding that the respondents had locus standi based on an earlier decision dated June 5, 2026.
The government is also challenging how the court dealt with its bid to discharge permission for judicial review and to halt a referral of the case to the Chief Justice for certification, insisting the matter raises fundamental jurisdictional issues that ought to have been resolved before the case could proceed any further.
“The Learned Judge erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that the appellants’ pending application to discharge leave for judicial review and to halt the referral raises fundamental jurisdictional issues that are preliminary in nature and ought to have been heard before the matter could proceed to the Chief Justice for certification,” the Notice of Appeal states.
The AG’s team have raised further objections, faulting the court for allegedly failing to invoke its inherent jurisdiction despite there being no specific rule governing the applicants’ case, and disputing the court’s finding that government relied on incorrect legal provisions in making its application.
The appellants further argue that the court failed to identify which legal provision it considered appropriate, a failure they claim denied them an effective remedy under Section 41 of the Constitution — and accuse the court of failing to properly apply the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires cases to be handled justly and efficiently.
