Mia v Malola & Malawi Electoral Commision (Election Petition 58 of 2025) [2025] MWHC 24 (11 November 2025)

“Rng Lite, Gy eg ay, ee bry Late ep Meee? REPUBLIC OF MALAWI eth ey IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI Np, CIVIL DIVISION 7 PRINCIPAL REGISTRY ELECTION PETITION NUMBER 58 OF 2025 (Betore Honourable Justice ALIDE) IN THE MATTER OF THE PRESIDENTIAL, PARLIAMENTARY, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ACT. -AND- IN THE MATTER OF THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS FOR (CHIKWAWA MKOMBEZI CONSTITUENCY IN CHIKWAWA DISTRICT. {Section 100 of the Presidential. Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act and Order 19 Rule 13 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules) 2017 BETWEEN: ABIDA SIDIK MIA nsnnnnennnnnnnnnrnsnannanennninnnnrnne PETITIONER -AND- LLOYD LAXTON ENOS MALOLA.nsnsnnnnnsneninnnnanrenenenrt ST RESPONDENT MALAWI ELECTORAL COMMISION vnnseennanvnennnnenvens2ND RESPONDENT ‘CORAM: HON. JUSTICE J, ALIDE ‘Messrs. A. Kapoto and A. Mande, of Counsel forthe Petitioner ‘Messrs. K. Mchiz, of Counsel for the tst Respondent ‘Mr. E. Chapo, of Counsel for the 2nd Respondent ‘Ms. M. Kachimanga, Court Cierk ‘Ms. H. Chiusiwa, Senior Court Recorder

Judgement

ALIDE, J

4. INTRODUCTION [1] 0n6" October, 2025 Hon. Abida Sicik Mia (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) brought a petition under Section 100 of the Presidential, Partiamentary, and Local

Government Elections Act, 2023 (herein after referred to as “the Act”), as read with Order 19 Rule 13 of the of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules) 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPR 2017”). The petition is against Lloyd Laxton Enos Molola (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st Respondent) and the Malawi Electoral ‘Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd Respondent.”).

[2] The Petitioner's seeking the following orders from this Court:

2. nullifying the declaration of Lioyd Laxton Enos Malota as the winner ofthe Parliamentary Elections for Chikwawa Mkombezi Constituency made by the 2nd Respondent on or about the oth of September, 2025 for undue return and undue election.

b. nullifying the declaration of Lioyd Laxton Enos Malola as the winner of the Parliamentary Elections for Chikwawa Mkombezi Constituency made by ‘the 2nd Respondent on or about the Soth of September, 2025 for contravening Section 41 of the Political Parties Act, 2018.

©. directing that the 2nd Respondent conducts fresh Parliamentary Elections in Chikwawa Mkombezi Constituency, and

4. costs ofthe action.

[3] The Petition also contained an allegation that the 1st Respondent and members of his ‘campaign team were allegedly campaigning outside the official campaign period. However, this was not referenced inthe prayer for reliefs sought by the Petitioner.

[4] The petition was supported by a sworn statement filed by the Petitioner herself, and supplementary swom statements filed by Sabex Tsoka, Grasham Chilonge, George Taulo, Lovemore Njanji, Exon Moffat, Palimau Ndalama, Thom Dingeres!, Gabriel Dombe, Alfred Limited and Henderson Mzati. The Petitioner also filed skeleton ‘arguments supporting her position accordingly. Both respondents opposed the petition.

15] The 1st Respondent opposed the petition on two grounds; firsty, that the Petitioner has falled to prove the irregularities alleged, and that if eny irregularities have been proved, then the Petitioner has feed to prove that the said iregularities atfected the results of the elections; and secondly, that the petition has been improperly brought before this Court on the alleged issue of giving out of handouts, and the campaigning outside the official campaign period. n that regard, the 1* Respondent has filed a sworn statement In reply and opposition to the petition. A further 4 supplementary sworn statements have been filed by Amos Soza, Elton Kendiero, John Farao Malunga and Nelson Stenalla “Mapute. The 1** Respondent has also fled skeleton arguments accordingly.

[6] The 2nd Respondent opposed the petition contending that the alleged irregularities in ‘the voting process raised by the Petitioner were factually incorrect. The 2 Respondent also argued that the alleged giving out of handouts and campaigning outside the ‘campaign period were offences under the law and that being the case, they cannot be ‘acted upon until the due process of the law is completed before a competent court of awe In that regard, the 2% Respondent fited a Reply to the Petition supported by two ‘swom statements by the 2° Respondent's Legal Counsel, Mr. David Matumika Banda, and the Chairperson, Justice Annabel Matalimanja. The 2% Respondent also filed skeleton arguments accordingly.

[7] The Court heard the Petition on 29" October, 2025 with the evidence presented by way of swom statements. The Petitioner filed a Notice to Cross Examine Counsel Benda and proceeded accordingly during the hearing petition. At the end of the hearing, the parties ‘were allowed to present their submissions in writing,

2 THEPETITIONER’S CASE

[8] _Itwas the Petitioner's humble petition that she contested as a candidate for the Malawi Congress Party for election as a Member of Parliament for Chikwawa Mkombezi Constituency in the Presidential Parliamentary and Local Government Elections, which ‘were held in Malawi on 16 September, 2025. At the end of the process, the 2nd Respondent announced the results ofthe elections on 30 November 2025 declaringthe ‘1stResponded as the winner.

[9] _Itis the Petitioner's evidence that before the declaration of these results, the Petitioner, through the Secretary General of the Malawi Congress Party, wrote a letter to the 2nd Respondent complaining about alleged irregularities that occurred during the electoral process and requested the 2nd Respondent to address the said complaints, and to conduct @ physical audit of the vote. The Petitioner particularised the alleged irregularities as follows:

(a) Alleged fake duplicate result sheets

The Petitioner alleged that the duplicate result sheets that were presented to her monitors appeared to have been filled in original handwriting, contrary to standard practice where the duplicates would bear imprints or have clear indication of their duplicate nature. To that effect the Petitioner exhibited copies of the said result sheets as "ASM 1”

{(b) Alleged lack of presiding officer's signature

The Petitioner alleged that the duplicate resutt sheets that were presented to her ‘monitors did not bear the Presiding Officer's signature thereby compromising the authenticity and legitimacy of the submitted results. The Petitioner exhibited ‘copies of the said results sheets as “ASM 2".

(€) Alleged inflated valid votes

‘The Petitioner alleged that the number of valid votes recorded in the submitted result sheets wore inflated in favour ofthe 1* Respondent thereby exceeding the total number of valid votes. The Petitioner exhibited copies of the said results sheets as “ASM 3", | (d) Alleged recording of result sheet recorded by a single person

‘The Petitioner alleged that some result sheets were signed by a single individual contrary to standard practice thereby compromising the authenticity and Legitimacy of the submitted results. The Petitioner exhibited copies of the sald results sheets as “ASM 3”

(6) Alleged duplicate result sheet drawn in original handwriting

‘The Petitioner alleged that some duplicate result sheets were in the same original handwriting as the primary sheets, which was highly irregular and indicative of fraud, To that effect, the Petitioner exhibited copies of the sald result sheets a8 “ASM1"

[10] It was the Petitioner’s further evidence that the 1* Respondent and members of his ‘campaign team continued to campaign and were ving hand out materials for the Democratic Progressive Party, after the closure of the campaign period. She further stated that the 1* Respondent and members of his campaign tear were giving cash handouts to voters outside polling centres as they were going to cast ther vote with an express message that the voters should vote for the 1* Respondent was contrary to ‘Section 41 ofthe Political Parties Act, 2018, Itwas her testimony that the material and ‘cash handouts, and further campaigning on the poling day rendered the voting process ‘otto be free, fair and credible thereby undermining the integrity of the results of the lection. She submitted that this was against her legitimate expectation of a free and fair election.

[11] [twas her further evidence that despite having presented the foregoing regularities to the 2nd Respondent within the prescribed time, the 2 Respondent unlawfully proceeded to deciare the 1* Respondent as duly elected Member of Parliament for the Constituency. She argued that in the premises, the 2™ Respondent unduly declared the ‘1 Respondentas winner ofthe Parliamentary Elections for the Constituency and called for the nulification of the same.

[12] in support of her position is the evidence presented by Sabex Tsoka and Grasham CChilonga, in two supplementary swom statements respectively Its in evidence that the

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