Seyani v Council for the National Herbarium & Botanic Gardens of Malawi (Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2025) [2025] MWHCCiv 12 (28 May 2025)

REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL DIVISION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2025 (Being IRC Matter No. 345 of 2021) (Before Honourable Justice Mambulasa) BETWEEN: PROFESSOR JAMES H. SEYANI………..…..……..……………APPLICANT -AND- COUNCIL FOR THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM AND BOTANIC GARDENS OF MALAWI………………………………………RESPONDENT CORAM: HON. JUSTICE MR. MANDALA D. MAMBULASA Mrs. Lucy Kusani, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Bruno Matumbi, Advocate for the Respondent Ms. Caroline Machado, Court Clerk/Official Interpreter ORDER MAMBULASA, J [1] This is the Respondent’s application to release motor vehicle, registration number, MHG 6565 TX, Toyota Prado which has been in the custody of this Court since 21st June, 2021 following an order made by the Chairperson of the Industrial Relations Court. [2] The Respondent depones in its Sworn Statement in Support of the application that the motor vehicle continues to deteriorate as it is parked at the High Court premises and has since not been moved or serviced. [3] The Industrial Relations Court has not set down a date of hearing in spite of the Respondent filing multiple notices for the same and from its experience dates are hard to come by. It will likely take a long time before the matter is heard substantively. [4] There is real danger that the motor vehicle will completely deteriorate and be written off before the final determination of the matter and in that way render part of the claims nugatory. [5] The Respondent states that it is in the best interests of both parties that the motor vehicle be released into the custody of the Respondent. [6] The Applicant opposes the application by the Respondent because one of the contentious issued to be determined by the Industrial Relations Court at trial is whether the circumstances under which the Respondent terminated the Applicant’s employment contract, entitle the Applicant to purchase the said motor vehicle. [7] The Applicant deposes that the Respondent has not provided any information to this Court on how it intends to use the motor vehicle if it is released from the High Court’s custody. In any event, any order releasing the motor vehicle into the Respondent’s possession at this stage can only work to prejudice the Applicant’s interests. [8] The Applicant believes that his claim would be rendered nugatory at the Industrial Relations Court if the motor vehicle is in the meantime released to the Respondent and it is subjected to further wear and tear by the Respondent’s use of the motor vehicle or is subsequently damaged in an accident or sold by the Respondent. [9] Thus, the Applicant verily believes that it would be in the interests of justice of both parties for the motor vehicle to remain in the Court’s custody until the final determination of the matter at the Industrial Relations Court. [10] The issue for determination before the Court is whether or not the motor vehicle in question should be released to the Respondent? [11] There is no specific law that governs the application that is before the Court. This is an appropriate case where the Court should invoke its reserve fund of inherent jurisdiction to do what is right and just in the circumstances of the case. [12] Before considering the application, the Court and the parties went to view the motor vehicle where it is parked within the High Court premises. It is in a sorry state. [13] Some of the tyres are deflated, it was scratched at the rear by other motor vehicles, the battery has drained, it is infested with rats, it has run out of fuel for running the engine from time to time to ensure it remains in a good condition, it is not washed and has cobwebs all over the place and it is in an open space exposed to natural elements. The Certificate of Fitness expired on 20th July, 2021. The Insurance Certificate expired on 1st March, 2022. [14] The Court agrees with the contention by the Respondent that if we let things the way they are going, nothing will be left of this motor vehicle by the time the matter in the Industrial Relations Court will be concluded. [15] The justice of this case requires that the motor vehicle be salvaged somehow even before the matter is concluded in the Industrial Relations Court. [16] In that regard, this Court is of the firm view that the motor vehicle in issue be released to the Respondent immediately on the following conditions: 16.1 That if the Applicant succeeds in his claim at the Industrial Relations Court, he should be allowed to pay to the Respondent the 10% for the purchase of the motor vehicle as per the terms of his contract of employment; 16.2 That the Respondent would then give the Applicant the value of the motor vehicle at the material time or provide him a motor vehicle of the same specifications as the one in issue. [17] Made in Chambers this 28th day of May, 2025 at Blantyre, Malawi. JUDGE M. D. MAMBULASA 5