Malawi’s Supreme Court grants leave for judicial review in case against Lilongwe DC and government

Malawi’s Supreme Court of Appeal has granted permission for a man to proceed with a judicial review against the District Commissioner of Lilongwe, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, and t

he President of Malawi, after an earlier application was denied by the High Court.

The permission for Sefasi Matthews Jonathan Masula to pursue the review was confirmed by his lawyer, Oscar Taulo, in an interview with Nyasa Times on Wednesday.

In an order dated 15 July 2026, Justice Dingiswayo Madise SC, JA ruled that a fresh application under Order 1 rule 18 of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules was merited, following the rejection of an initial application for judicial review at the High Court’s Lilongwe District Registry.

The judge noted that the respondents had raised no objection to the fresh application.

“Having read the certificate of non-compliance and the affidavit in support of the application it is clear that the respondents do not wish to oppose the application for permission for Judicial Review which was earlier denied by the Court below,” the order states.

Justice Madise added: “Having noted that the fresh application under Order 1 rule 18 of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules is merited, I hereby grant permission for Judicial Review to be placed before a different judge.”

The case will now proceed to judicial review before a different judge from the one who declined the original application.

Taulo confirmed the respondents named in the matter as the District Commissioner of Lilongwe District Council, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, and the President of the Republic of Malawi.

The order was issued at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Blantyre and signed by the assistant registrar.

Judicial review allows courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions taken by public bodies. With permission now granted, the substantive grounds of Masula’s case will next be argued before the High Court.

Efforts to obtain comment from the named respondents were unsuccessful by the time of publication.