Malawi Broadcasting Corporation v Eliza Kaunda (Civil Appeal Number 23 of 2024; IRC Matter Number 323 of 2019) [2026] MWHC 60 (15 September 2026)

Ae oof ee oe Re kee er | ‘ a PRE po a PRD Svar se py tees C Cw iy) LWW Fs extn REPUBLIC OF MALAWI TN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI CIVIL DIVISION PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 23 OF 2024 e (Being IRC Matter Number 323 of 2019) BETWEEN MALAWI BROADCASTING CORPORATION........-::s:s:s00e-00ee APPELLANT

ELIZA KACHALE KAUNDA. ceccsscccccssossssssseseeeeeee seessesstseassesee RESPONDENT Before Honourable Justice Jack N’riva Judge Counsel for the Appellant Mr. D. Kanyenda Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Mauya Msuku Court Clerk, Mr. Gogoda. e JUDGMENT Introduction 7 : This is an appeal by Malawi Broadcasting Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, against the decision of the Industrial Relations Court, The Respondent, who was the applicant before the court below, commenced proceedings claiming, principally, compensation arising from what she alleged was her unfair dismissal from employment by the Appellant. Following the

Sn Ree. OY

Es" ’!{‘*\ OO hearing, the Industrial Relations Court found in her favour and proceeded to assess the compensation and severance allowance payable to her.

The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision and, in particular, the findings conceming the validity of the reason for dismissal, procedural faimess and the quantum of compensation, has appealed io this Court on thirteen grounds. For convenience, I shall reproduce the grounds in substance rather than verbatim. The Appellant complains that the court below erred: e@ 1. im finding that the Respondent lacked a valid reason for dismissal; 2. im finding that the Respondent was not accorded a fair hearing; 3. in dismissing the Appellant's counterclaim of K6,940,060.00; 4. in failing to recognise K 440,953.41 as the Respondent's gross salary: 5. in determining the salary to be K574,142.89: 6. in including fuel and airtime allowances which had allegedly been withdrawn; 7. in including pension benefits in determining gross salary; 8. in awarding compensation above the statutory minimum without e exceptional circumstances; 9. in failing to give cogent reasons for such an award: 10.in enhancing the award by 20%: | 1 Lin failing to give due weight to mitigation; 12.in awarding items that were not pleaded or had been withdrawn; and 13.in making an award which was manifestly excessive and against the weight of the evidence. The Respondent resists the appeal and submits that the decision of the court below was properly grounded in the evidence and the law

OO

Thave considered the record of proceedings, the order and assessment of the court 7 below, the grounds of appeal and the submissions of learned counsel. I have also considered the authorities cited before me. Applicable principles on appeal An appeal from a lower court comes by way of rehearing. The appellate court does not ordinarily hear the witnesses afresh. It considers the evidence that was before the court below and determines whether the conclusions reached were Properly open to that court. In Steve Chingwalu & DHL 10 International v Redson Chahuka & Hastings Magwirani [2010] MLR 382, the Court stated at page 388 that an appeal is by way of rehearing and involves consideration of the whole of the evidence and the course of the trial. An appellate court must, however, distinguish between findings of fact, questions of law and the exercise of judicial discretion. On questions of fact, an appellate court will ordinarily be slow to interfere with findings made by a court which heard and assessed the evidence. Intervention is e justified where there has been a misdirection or misapprehension of the evidence, where the finding is unsupported by the evidence, or where no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could have reached it. On questions of law, in Mutharika & Another v Chilima & Another, MSCA Constitutional Appeal No. | of 2020, the Supreme Court observed that where the law has been misapplied to established facts, an appellate court is entitled to correct the error. The same restraint applies to the exercise of judicial discretion. In Willy Kamowo v Limbe Leaf Tobacco Company Limited (2010) MLR 467, the Court stated that

_L—— Leena’ compensation cannot be measured with pinpoint accuracy and that, unless the exercise of discretion is obviously perverse, an appellate court should be slow to intertere.

Similarly, in Zebedayo Mataya v Standard Bank, Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2021, the Court emphasised that an appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion in the absence of an abuse of discretion or other proper basis for intervention, Issues for determination Although the Appeiiant has filed thirteen grounds, several grounds overiap. i shaii therefore, determine them under the following issues:

1. Whether the Respondent's dismissal was founded upon a valid reason.

2. Whether the Respondent was accorded a fair hearing.

3. Whether the counterclaim was properly dismissed.

4. Whether the court below adopted the correct remuneration figure for purposes of compensation.

5. Whether the court below was entitled to award compensation above the 4 statutory minimum and whether it gave sufficient reasons.

6. Whether the 20% enhancement was permissible.

7. Whether the court below properly dealt with mitigation,

8. Whether the court below awarded matters which were not pleaded or had been withdrawn.

9. Whether the ultimate award was manifestly excessive or otherwise warrants appellate intervention. Issue |: Whether there was a valid reason for dismissal Section 57(1) of the Employment Act provides:

ee ee

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