The State ( on the application of Yeremia Chihana) v Blantyre Water Board (Judicial Review Case 9 of 2026) [2026] MWHC 28 (19 May 2026)

Page 1 of 5 REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL DIVISION JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE NUMBER 09 OF 2026 (Before Honourable Justice Muhome) BETWEEN: THE STATE (on the application of YEREMIA CHIHANA) CLAIMANT AND BLANTYRE WATER BOARD DEFENDANT CORAM: HON. JUSTICE ALLAN HANS MUHOME Mr Michael Goba Chipeta, of Counsel for the Claimant Mr Kayikani Chakuwawa, of Counsel for the Defendant Mr Michael Mwaluka, of Counsel for the Defendant Mrs Linda Odeni, Court Clerk Page 2 of 5 RULING 1. This is an application by the Defendant for an order discharging leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings and an ancillary order of stay, earlier granted by this Court. The application is brought under Order 10, rules 1 and 3, and Order 16, rule 6, of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The Claimant opposes the application. 2. The brief background to the matter is that the Claimant accepted an offer for a position of Chief Executive Officer for the Defendant on 8th April 2026. Some 19 days later, on 27th April 2026, the Defendant suspended the Claimant from employment, pending investigations . The suspension was based on allegations that he had made public pronouncements, without board approval, such as that the Defendant would provide free water and chlorine to areas affected by cholera and write off arrears owed by operators of water kiosks . Further, he permitted an unauthorized person to drive his official vehicle and have access to the Defendant’s premises and documentation. He allegedly caused the arrest of some of the Defendant’s directors contrary to a board resolution. 3. This Court, without notice to the Defendant, granted the Claimant leave to apply for judicial review and a stay of the said suspension. The Court also ordered the Defendant to disclose certain documents in relation to the allegations, which is a subject of separate contempt of court proceedings. 4. In relation to the present application, p arties filed sworn statements and skeleton arguments and made oral submissi ons, for which the Court is grateful. Page 3 of 5 5. Counsel for the Defendant primarily argued that the matters herein are between employer and employee and should , therefore, have been commenced in the Industrial Relations Court. In that regard, the High Court lacks jurisdiction in keeping with the decisions in Nathan Mpinganjira v The State & Malawi Development Corporation (MDC) , Misc. Civil Cause Number 63 of 2003 ; The State (On the Application of Kamkwamba Kumwenda and Chrispin Banda) v Secretary to the Cabinet an d Another Judicial Review Case Numbers 52 and 53 of 2025 ( Kumwenda Case) and Makhasu v Blantyre Water Board Land Case Number 2 of 2026. 6. In response, Counsel for the Claimant argued that this is an appropriate case wherein this Court should review the decision of the Defendant. He sought to rely on The State (On the Application of Major Blessings Kakhuta Banda & 2 Others) v The Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Judicial Review Cause Number 71 of 2025. That case involved Malawi Defence Force officers, who are exempted from the provisions of the Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act and therefore clearly distinguishable from the present facts. 7. That said, it is correct that in relevant cases a statutory body may act in a relationship that has contractual incidents, but its decisions may still be judicially reviewable where the power exercised is public in nature, affects public administration, statutory functions, constitutional rights, legitim ate expectations, or fairness in the exercise of public power: see R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815. 8. Counsel for the Claimant correctly cited Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 which demonstrates that employment -related de cisions concerning public offices may attract public -law fairness where the office, power and consequences are public in character. Similarly, R v Secretary of State for Page 4 of 5 the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 affirms the flexible but fundament al requirement that a person affected by an adverse administrative decision be given sufficient information and fairness appropriate to the circumstances. 9. Having reviewed the parties’ respective positions, this Court agrees with the Defendant that the rights that the Claimant wishes to enforce are primarily private rights under his contract of employment. This finding is supported by the conclusion in Nathan Mpinganjira v The State & Malawi Development Corporation (MDC) (above), where the Claimant was challenging his suspension from employment through Judicial Review proceedings. He was suspended by the comptroller of statutory corporations and not necessarily MDC. 10. Hon. Kapanda J. (as he then was) made the following pertinent observation: I hold the view that the Applicant does not have an arguable case for judicial review. The dominant factor in this case is that the Applicant wants to enforce private rights under the private law of employment… 11. In discharging the permission, the Court made an observation that most of the reliefs sought in the High Court could be obtained in the Industrial Relations Court. This Court has recently followed suit in the Kumwenda Case and so considers that these are well settled principles of the law. 12. Further, this Court is aware that the law clearly stipulates that where there is an apparent mix between private and public law matters the Court should consider the dominant factor: see the Judgment of Mwaungulu J. (as he then was) in Chisa v Attorney General Civil Cause Number 85 of 1994 . This Page 5 of 5 Court considers that the dominant factor in the present matter is the employment aspect. 13. At the risk of repetition, this Court already stated in the Kumwenda Case that the law has carefully designed specialised courts to deal with labour matters and so the High Court should not be inundated with such matters, at first instance. Similarly, it is the conclusion of this Court that the Claimant herein has an alternative and effective remedy in the Industrial Relations Court. 14. In view of the foregoing, the permission granted for Judicial Review and stay is hereby discharged and each party shall bear their own costs. Made in Chambers this 19th day of May, 2026. Allan Hans Muhome JUDGE