Case Summary - Julius Adam Kazembe -V- Malawi Electoral Commission

Sep

13

2025

0

Time to read

1 minute

Read so far

By Malawi Judiciary

Court News

REPUBLIC OF MALAWI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

ZOMBA DISTRICT REGISTRY

ELECTORAL MATTER NO. 6 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 42(1) & (2) OF THE PRESIDENTIAL, PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ACT, 2023

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

JULIUS ADAM KAZEMBE (CLAIMANT)

AND

MALAWI ELECTORAL COMMISSION (RESPONDENT)

BRIEF FACTS

On 27th July, 2025, the Applicant, an aspiring councillor for Mandimba Ward (Ward 13901) in Mangochi district, presented his nomination papers, through its Constituency Returning Officer (the CRO) at Masongola TDC in Mangochi district. Prior to the presentation, the Applicant had paid a nomination fee of K100, 000. 00. Subsequently on 15th August, 2025 the Respondent, through the CRO, rejected the Applicant’s nomination, on the ground that he had paid a lesser nomination fee that which was applicable to persons in his category of aspirants. Aggrieved by the respondent’s rejection of his nomination, the Applicant brought the present application by way of summons, seeking an order directing the Respondent to accept his nomination as a a candidate for the local government elections for the ward.

THE LEGAL ISSUES

The court isolated the following legal issues to be determined, namely;

Whether or not the sworn statement in support of the application ought to be accepted by the court
Whether o not the present matter was properly brought before the Court
Whether or not the Applicant had paid the nomination fee applicable to him
Whether or not the Respondent had abdicated its legal duty in the circumstances of the present matter
Whether or not the Court ought to direct the Respondent to accept the Applicant’s nomination as a candidate for the local government elections for the Ward.

THE FINDING

The Court heard the matter on 10th September 2025 and delivered its ruling on 12th September, 2025 making the following findings:

The Applicant’s sworn statement was defective as it omitted the deponent’s name, but granted the Applicant permission to use it
The matter was improperly brought before the Court. The court found that the mode of commencement which was apposite herein was judicial review
Having found that the matter was improperly commenced, the Court could not determine the isolated issues since they had naturally fallen away.

ORDER

The High Court issued the following orders: