Court dismisses Mulli lawsuit against Malawi govt

The High Court’s Commercial Division Judge Michael Mtambo has  dismissed Mulli Brothers Limited in a case  the company sued  government after the company claimed it was removed from the list of successful bidders to transport subsidy fertiliser.

In his judgement, Mtambo said the commencement of the action by way of Originating Summons was wrongful in terms of Order 2 rule 2 of the High Court Commercial Division Rules, 2007.

The judge dismissed the case with costs.

Mulli:  Loses case

Mulli: Loses case

During the Joyce Banda’s administration, Mulli Brothers reportedly qualified for an award of a contract with Ministry of Agriculture, but government did not award the company the contract.

Having qualified to be awarded a bid, the court learnt, the company was wrongly removed from the list of successful bidders on the “baseless false ground” that the company was under court investigations and on the directive of the then minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Attorney General, Ralph Kasambara, that the company must not be awarded any bids.

Mulli’s lawyer Tamando Chokotho argued that the compnay was prevented from getting the contract by some political machinations.

The  company demanded special damages for the contract worth K296 237 550, in the alternative, special damages for the unlawful non-award of the company’s bid and costs of the action.

Attorney General through lawyer Wongani Mvula argued  that Mulli  failed to give notice of intended suit to government; failed to make a query to the procurement agency regarding the non-award of the contract as required by the Public Procurement Act and wrongfully commenced court action by Originating Summons in a case having substantial dispute of facts.

In his judgement, Mtambo agreed with Mvula, saying “it was clear Mulli Brothers did not plead breach of contract, but wrongful unconstitutional and unlawful interference with the company’s bid or in the alternative unlawful non-award of the plaintiff’s bid contrary to the Public Procurement Act.”

Mtambo added: “It is the finding of this court that the general provision in Order 65 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which allows service by post, being subsidiary legislation, cannot override the specific mandatory requirement of a statute to deliver a letter of notice of intended suit to the office of the Attorney General.

“The inconvenience and expense to be associated with delivering the letter to the office of the Attorney General as required by law should not be the concern of this court which is only mandated to interpret and apply the law and not legislate through its judgments. In the circumstances, I dismiss the plaintiff’s action with costs.”

Section 37 of the Public Procurement Act provides that any bidder who claims to have suffered or may suffer loss or injury due to breach of a duty imposed on the procuring entity by the Act or the Regulations may seek judicial review in accordance with Part III of the Act.

The law also requires that anyone who intends to sue the AG must give a three months notice before any documents are filed in court.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :

Please share this Article if you like Email This Post Email This Post

More From the World

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Aferazao
Guest

The big thief has been caught with his pants down this time around. I like it when such people end up on the receiving end. There is always time when a bird shall perch after flying so high in the sky.

Black Market
Guest

Kuba poyelayela, Cashgate in a twisted way, another Kasambala. Milking a dying cow, munthu opanda chisoni.

Paul J.C.Mwafulirwa.
Guest

Muli is a Malawian Entrapreneur who is quoite inovative and despite such negative set backs he needs encouragement from the business world to forge ahead. In this globalised world we need such innovative people who can help in the Development of the country. We should differentiate between monopolistic tendancies and innoventiveness. A good bussinessman takes advantage of the oppportiunities available and this is what an innovative entrapreneuire like Muli does. We need a fair play no jealousy!

Kirininti Yowehiwana
Guest

Did I hear someone say Mulli attends DPP Executive meetings and makes biased business decisions favouring his Company? Abale zinazi tizinena zoona. Panopa what most of us know is that he is only imterested in imposing MPs of his choice in most constituencies of the Lomwe belt basi. I have yet to see a published report of his position in the DPP indicating his position in the party that would warrant him attending a meeting of the party, for the party and by the party.

Thyangathyanga
Guest

Hahahaha, thank you Hon Mtambo for such a wonderful judgement. I salute you. Mulli watchera kumwezi nkhanga zaona kkkkkkk. Judge Mtambo wapulumutsa ndalama zankhani nkhani pamenepa.

Khuth'upa o'Machemba
Guest

To Mr. Mulli haters: please note that this case was dismissed on a technicality. The dismissal was not based on the facts of the case; it was clearly based on the aspect that Mr. Mulli’s lawyers did not file notice to the government, in advance and in timely fashion. Blame the lawyer and not Mr. Mulli. The businessman will probably hire a different lawyer, a more competent one, in future.
So, detractors: spare your joy!

Observer
Guest

Incompetence of the lawyer Muli used is appalling. Even a paralegal would have done a better job I gather.

Moya
Guest

Trying to milk a cow that is thin and bleeding already with no shame and sympathy.

Pastor nyalapa
Guest

Unakonzeratu ma budget kuti ukagule ma lorry ena, zavuta

John Banda
Guest

Observing Mulli from here, overseas, people are not jealous about his worth. He is just stupid, manipulative,greedy,unMalawian pig. Sorry Mulli you do not deserve to be included in the human race.

MaiMai
Guest

Sue dpp as well for not giving you new contracts. Mbuli ya c hilomweyi thinks he is above everyone. ..ndizimenezotu mwaluza

More From Nyasatimes