Lemson Chitawo and Another v Mpico PLC Ltd (MSCA Civil Appeal 5 of 2023) [2026] MWSC 7 (18 August 2026)

Chitawo v MPICO _ MSCA Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2023 ae IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL, SITTING AT BLANTYRE MSCA Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2023

BETWEEN: LEMSON CHITAWO AND MONICA DZANJALIMODZL senneenvssen APPELLANT -and- MPICO PLC LID enmennntnnnnnnennmnnnnnnnnnnnnnsnsineRESPONDENT

Coram

HON DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE L.P. CHIKOPA SC JA. HON JUSTICE FE. KAPANDA, SC, JA. HON JUSTICE H.S.B POTANI, SC, JA. HON JUSTICE J. KATSALA, SC, JA. 15 HON JUSTICE LC. KAMANGA, SC, JA. HON JUSTICE M.C.C. MKANDAWIRE, SC, JA. HON JUSTICE nyaKAUNDA-KAMANGA, SC, JA. L. Mickeas, Counsel for the Appellants P. Likongwe, Counsel for the Respondent 20 HVH W. ShaibwH/H J. Tehukambiri, Judicial Research Officer M. Mthunzi/E. Minikwa, Recording Officer C. Mutinti/B, Pendame, Court Reporters win

Chitawo vMPICO _MSCA Civil Appeat No. 05 of 2023 Date of Hearing: 23th January, 2025 Date of Judgement: 18 August, 2026

Judgement

F.E. Kapanda SC, JA:

Introduction

10 The appellants, former employees of MPICO, commenced proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court (IRC) in 2003, alleging unfair dismissal and seeking various employment-related benefits. ‘The IRC initially determined that the redundancy was unfair, delivering a brief ruling on lability. Subsequently, the issue of compensation was assessed at various stages by the IRC, the High Court, and the Supreme Court of Appeal (MSCA), involving multiple appeals and remitals between the 15 respective courts Although the IRC ultimately awarded compensation to the appellants, MPICO appealed against the quantum awarded. The High Court, per Chinangwa J, allowed MPICO’s appeal and reversed the IRC’s assessment on several elements of compensation. Consequently, the appellants have now ‘brought the present appeal before the MSCA, challenging the decision of the High Court.

Factual Background

‘This appeal arises from a protracted employment dispute concerning the unfair dismissal of the appellants, Lemson Chitawo and Monica Dzanjalimodzi, by MPICO PLC. The Industrial Relations Court (IRC) initially uted in favour ofthe appellants, awarding compensation for unfair 25 redundancy. However, the High Court subsequently overtumed parts of the IRC’s assessment, prompting this appeal. The appellants challenge the High Court’s interference with the IRC’s m2o0

Chitawov MPICO _MSCA Civil Appeal No, 05 of 2023

factual findings, while MPICO cross-appeals on specific issues, including the notice period

calculation. .

‘The case involves Lemson Chitawo and Monica Dvanjalimodzi as appellants, and Malawi Property

Investment Company Limited (MPICO) as the respondent. Both appellants were long-serving 5 employees of MPICO, having been transferred from the Capital City Development Corporation

(CCDC). Lemson Chitawo was declared redundant on 31 October 2001 while he was pursuing an

MBA in the United Kingdom. Monica Dzanjalimodzi was declared redundant abruptly on 26

October 2001, just afew weeks after her husband.

In 2003, the appellants brought a claim before the Industrial Relations Court (IRC), alleging unfair

10 dismissal and seeking compensation for mental and emotional distress, withheld salary and benefits, reimbursement for losses linked to a study bond and a forfeited scholarship, and interest ‘on al the claimed amounts. On 21 August 2006, the IRC ruled in their favour, with a follow-up ruling on assessment of compensation delivered on 3 August 2007.

Dissatisfied with the IRC’s compensation assessment, the appellants appealed to the High Court.

15 023 July 2009, the High Court ruled thatthe appeal succeeded “in a substantial way” and referred the matter back for assessment. The Assistant Registrar's assessment was again found ‘unsatisfactory by the appellants, as it failed to account for several reliefs. Consequently, they appealed to the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal (MSCA),

‘On 28 May 2013, the MSCA ruled in favour of the appellants and allowed them to return to the

20 IRC for assessment of the remaining reliefs. On 25 May 2016, the IRC reassessed compensation and awarded, among other things, one month's notice pay, a refund of house loan interest, tuition and living expenses, travel costs, three years’ salary based on a training bond agreement, and certain bonuses tothe second appellant. The IRC also awarded interest on all awards at arate of the prevailing bank lending rate plus 5 percent.

25 The respondent, MPICO, appealed the IRC’s 2016 decision to the High Court, challenging the interpretation of the training bond, the awarding of bonuses and financial entitlements, and the IRC’s jurisdiction to award commercial interest rates. On 13 May 2019, the High Court overturned parts of the IRC’s assessment, leading the appellants to file another appeal.

CChitawo v MPICO _MSCA Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2023 MPICO also filed a cross-appeal, disputing the IRC’s findings on the effective date of redundancy notice and the entitlement of the second appellant to a 13th cheque and an additional bonus. The application before Justice Singini JA in the matter of Lemson Chitawo and Another v ‘MPICO pertained to two principal reliefs sought by the appellants: firstly, an application to amend 5 IRC Form I and the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, and secondly, a request for an extension of time within which to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 23 July 2008. ‘Summary of the Decision: Justice Singini JA dismissed the application in its entirety, with costs. His Lordship determined that the appellants’ attempt to amend their claim or revive the appeal at that advanced stage was 10 devoid of merit. The application was filed nearly eight years subsequent to the original judgment of the Industrial Relations Court (IRC), rendered on 21 August 2006. Notably, the appellants had not previously raised the issue of interest in their prior appeals before either the High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal. His Lordship underscored the doctrine of fimctus officio, affirming that the IRC, having already 15 delivered a perfected judgment and ruling, lacked jurisdiction to revisit or amend its decision absent statutory authorization or an order from a superior court. Furthermore, Justice Singini JA observed that the appellants had not asserted a claim for interest in the original IRC proceedings. Consequently, the omission of interest in the ruling could not be deemed inadvertent, thereby ! precluding any subsequent amendment to incorporate such a claim. 20 The judgment reinforced the doctrine of finality in litigation, emphasizing the necessity of conclusiveness in judicial determinations. Granting the amendments sought would have | contravened this principle, prejudicing the respondent, who had already fully complied with the compensation orders issued by the IRC.

Disposition

25 The application was accordingly dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, ‘owing to the respondent's non-attendance upon service of the application. Ae

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.