๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ ๐๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ - ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐ก๐ผ. ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฑ
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ
The respondent, Daniel Binda, sought to contest the parliamentary elections for Nkhotakota Liwaladzi Constituency. He submitted nomination papers and paid nomination fees applicable to youth candidates. The Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) rejected the nomination on the ground that the respondent did not qualify as a youth under the applicable Gazette Notice and had therefore failed to pay the prescribed nomination fee commensurate with his age category.
The respondent commenced judicial review proceedings in the High Court, arguing that the insufficiency of the nomination fee constituted a defect in the nomination papers which MEC was obliged to communicate under section 39(2) and (3) of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act, 2023 (PPLGEA), so as to allow rectification. The High Court upheld the claim and ordered MEC to permit the respondent to pay the balance of the nomination fee and to include him on the list of duly nominated candidates. MEC appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
๐๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น
1. Whether the respondent qualified as a duly nominated candidate despite failing to pay the prescribed nomination fees applicable to his age category.
2. Whether nomination papers submitted without payment of the requisite fees qualified for examination by MEC under section 39 of the PPLGEA.
3. Whether MEC had a duty to notify the respondent of any defects in his nomination papers in the circumstances of the case.
๐๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐๐๐ถ๐
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that payment of nomination fees commensurate with the applicable age category is a threshold requirement for qualification as a candidate. The respondentโs failure to pay the prescribed fees meant that he did not qualify as a candidate in the Nkhotakota Liwaladzi parliamentary elections.
The Court further held that, because the respondent had not paid the requisite fees, his nomination papers did not qualify for examination by MEC. Consequently, MEC was under no obligation to scrutinize the nomination papers or to notify the respondent of any alleged defects therein.
The Court concluded that the High Courtโs judgment was not supported by the evidence or the applicable law, having proceeded on the erroneous premise that the respondent was entitled to rectification under section 39 of the PPLGEA despite non-compliance with the statutory fee requirement.
๐ข๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ
The Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and made the following orders:
1. The judgment of the High Court was reversed and set aside.
2. The Malawi Electoral Commission shall proceed with the parliamentary elections in Nkhotakota Liwaladzi Constituency.
3. The votersโ roll shall be as it stood on 16 September 2025.
4. The candidates eligible to contest shall be those who were duly nominated as at 16 September 2025.
5. The respondent remains excluded from contesting in the Nkhotakota Liwaladzi parliamentary elections.
6. Costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the court below were awarded to the respondent.
ย
(Hon. Deputy Chief Justice L. Chikopa SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal F. Kapanda SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal H. Potani SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal J. Katsala SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal I. Chatha-Kamanga SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal M.C.C. Mkandawire SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal S. Kalembera SC, Hon. Justice of Appeal D. Madise SC, & Hon. Justice of Appeal R. Mbvundula SC)
21st January 2026
- 95 views