Singini v Attorney General (Civil Cause 336 of 2020) [2023] MWHCCiv 29 (30 August 2023)

REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI MZUZU DISTRICT REGISTRY CIVIL DIVISION CIVIL CAUSE NUMBER 336 OF 2020 BEFORE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KONDOWE BETWEEN CHINGANGANGA SINGINI 7.0.0.0... cece cesses een ecnecneeeeaeecsenesnoonereoesateneoes CLAIMANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ......cccccceneccscescscesceceeeecveceesssoseseesssset DEFENDANT CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE MAUREEN KONDOWE Kapote, Counsel for the Claimant Defendant, absent. Application is for a without-notice order of default judgment Mr K. Thadzi, Senior Court Clerk JUDGMENT i. BACKGROUND TO THIS JUDGMENT 1.1 By a specially-endorsed irregularly-incomplete summons dated 7" October, 2020 the Claimant commenced this legal action against the Defendant. The Claimant who is legally represented did not indicate the authority of law on the basis of which he filed this summons before this court and subsequently served it on the Defendant as he alleged. Neither the Claimant nor his legal practitioners signed and dated the summons. Attached to this summons were a statement of case dated 29“ September, 2020 and a list of documents also dated 29" September, 2020. The Claimant also filed two sworn statements both dated 30" September, 2020 which verified the statement of case and the list of documents. 1.2 By an ex parte application for a default judgment dated 19" May, 2023 the Claimant applied for an order that a default judgment should be entered against the Defendant. The Claimant stated that the ground of this application was that the Defendant gave him no notice of intention to defend the case and also filed no defence in this matter within the period prescribed by Order 12 rule 6 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The application was brought before this court pursuant to Order 12 rules 7 and 12 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 (“the 2017 Rules”). It was supported by a sworn statement dated 16" May, 2023 which Counsel for the Claimant swore. The application did not indicate the deponent of the Application Supporting Sworn Statement on its face. APPLICATION SUPPORTING SWORN STATEMENT ALLEGATIONS 2.1 Paragraph 3 of the Application Supporting Sworn Statement alleged that Counsel caused the filing of the summons in this court allegedly on 2" October, 2020. 2.2 Paragraph 4 of the Application Supporting Sworn Staternent alleged that on allegedly 26" October, 2020 the Defendant got served with the summons as alleged by allegedly signing it allegedly signifying the alleged acceptance of this alleged service. 2.3 Paragraph 5 of the Application Supporting Sworn Statement alleged that since allegedly 26" October, 2020 over 2 months had allegedly passed without allegedly any response or a defence from the Defendant. 2.4 Paragraph 6 of the Application Supporting Sworn Statement alleged that there was allegedly no reason to doubt whether the Defendant had the alleged notice of this matter or not. There is no prayer of any kind for any kind of an order that the Claimant made in the Application Supporting Sworn Statement. THE EVIDENCE 3.1 The Claimant indicated in his Application Supporting Sworn Statement dated 16" May, 2023 that he would produce and exhibit a true copy cf the alleged served summons marked “CM1”. The Claimant did not produce and exhibit this alleged true copy of this alleged served summons. He instead produced and exhibited the first 2 page only of the initial directions which he marked as “CMI” but was not commissioned. 3.2 In his list of documents dated 29'" September, 2020 the Claimant listed alleged letters allegedly bearing the alleged date of 16 October, 2018 from him to some alleged encroachers whose certified copies are not available on the file of this court; a letter dated 5 November, 2018 from the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) to the legal practitioners for the Claimant; and a demand letter dated 23" June, 2020 from the Claimant to the Defendant which was copied to one Tryson Chinganganga Singini. The court file also has an uncertified copy of an alleged earlier demand letter from the Claimant to the Defendant dated 16" October, 2018 which he never listed in his list of documents dated 29"" September, 2020. THE LAW ON DEFAULT JUDGMENTS 4.1 UNDER THE 2017 RULES 4.1.1 Order 12 rule 6(b)(1) of the 2017 Rules states that where a defendant files a response within 14 days after service of the summons as stated in Order 12 rule 6(a) of this Order but does not file and serve a defence within 28 davs after service of the summons...the claimant may file a sworn statement as a ‘proof cf service’ that the summons and response in Form 2 were served on the defendant as required by Order 5 rule 7, and he may apply for a judgment in default to be entered under this Order against the defendant. 4.1.2 Order 12 rule 7(1) of the 2017 Rules states that an application for a judgment in default for ... unliquidated monetary claims ... including claims for the recovery or delivery of possession of Jand in an application for possession of land may be made by filing a draft of the judgment together with a sworn statement in support of the application. 4.1.3 Order 12 rule 8(1) of the 2017 Rules states that this court may enter a judgment in default for the claimant under rule 7 without a hearing for ... unliquidated monetary claims including claims for the recovery or delivery of possession of land in an application for possession of land. 4.1.4 Order 25 of the 2017 Rules provides for the powers and functions of Registrars. Section 2 of the Courts Act defines ‘Registrar’ as the Registrar of the High Court and includes an Assistant Registrar. 4.1.5 Order 25 rule 1(h) of the 2017 Rules states that subject to the direction of a Judge the Registrar may exercise the jurisdiction, powers and functions of the court to make, or refuse to make, an order on entering of a judgment in default. DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMANT 5.1 Through his ex parte application for a default judgment to be entered by this court against the Defendant dated 6" February, 2023 the Claimant sought an order of default judgment against the Defendant. This application called upon this court to decide whether or not a default judgment should be entered against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant filed no notice of intention to defend this legal action or a defence with this court within the period that Order 12 rule 6 of the 2017 Rules prescribes. The Claimant did not file any skeleton arguments. 5.2 This court grants the Claimant the order of default judgment that he sought against the Defendant for the order that the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) should allocate some alternative land to him for the following reasons: 5.2.1 This court noted that Order 12 rule 6(b)(i) of the 2017 Rules states that where a defendant files a response within 14 days after service of the summons as stated in Order 12 rule 6(a) of this Order but does not file and serve a defence within 28 days after service of the summons...the claimant may file a sworn statement as a ‘proof of service’ that the summons and response in Form 2 were servec on the defendant as required by Order 5 rule 7, and he may apply for a judgment in default to be entered under this Order against a defendant. Order 12 rule 7(1) of the 2017 Rules states that an application for a judgment in default for ... unliquidated monetary claims ... may be made by filing a draft of the judgment together with a sworn statement in support of the application. Order 12 rule 8(1) of the 2017 Rules states that this court may enter a judgment in default for the claimant under rule 7 without a hearing for ... unliquidated monetary claims...including claims for the recovery ... of land. It is on the basis of these provisions of the procedural law that this court applies to court actions including the present application for an order of default judgment that compelled this court to grant the Claimant the order of default judgment for the relief that the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) should allocate some alternative land to him. It is so ordered; and 5.2.2 This court observed that a look at the court documents that are on the file of this court shows that the Claimant served the Attorney General with the mandatory statutory demand notice that section 4 of the Civil Procedure (Suits by or against the Government or Public Officers) Act (Cap. 6:01 of the Laws of Malawi) obliged him to on 26" October, 2020. The service was personal as evidenced by the date stamp from the Chambers of the Attorney General dated 26'" October, 2020. This service sufficed for purposes of Order 8 rule 19(1) of the 2017 Rules which states that all documents required to be served on the Government for the purpose of or in connection with any proceeding against it must be served on the Attorney General. It is so ordered. It is also indisputable from an additional examination of the documents that are on the file of this court that the Claimant also served the Attorney General with the court case commencement documents which comprised the Initial Direction dated 12 October, 2020, the specially endorsed summons dated 7 October, 2020, the statement of case dated 29" September, 2020, the Claimant’s list of documents dated 29" September, 2020 and the sworn statements that verified the statement of ease and the list of documents both also dated 30" September, 2020 on 26" October, 2020. The Attorney General in fact acknowledged service of this court process through a date stamp on the court case commencement documents dated 26!" October, 2020. The Attorney General in fact also began participating in these court proceedings by filing the response dated 4° November, 2020 in compliance with the procedural requirements of Order 5 rule 7(2)(a) of the 2017 Rules. It is this available background information to the application for an order of default judgment that also persuaded this court to agree with the Claimant that the order he sought for a default judgment must be entered against the Defendant albeit in the view of this court for some and not all of the reliefs he sought against the Defendant the Defendant having not filed a defence to these claims in contravention of Order 7 rule 5 of the 2017 Rules which states that where a defendant intends to contest a claim, the defendant must file and serve a defence on the claimant within a period of 28 days that Order 5 rule 7(2)(b) of the 2017 Rules prescribes. The Attorney General did not take any further step in the prosecution of any defence to the claims of the Claimant in this legal action after the filing of the response dated 4° November, 2020 with this court for reasons that this court found inexplicable. It is so ordered. 5.3 In his statement of case dated 29™ September, 2020 the Claimant sought the reliefs of an order that government do give him some replacement land if it acquired his land; in the alternative an order that government do vacate “his land” forthwith: an order of permanent injunction restraining the government from exercising ownership of the land that it allegedly converted into public land from the customary land that the Claimant previously occupied until he is adequately compensated; and costs of this action. This court grants the Claimant the order of default judgment he sought against the Defendant for the relief that the Ministry of Lands. Housing and Urban Development through the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) do identify, survey, map, demarcate, allocate to and register some alternative land for the Claimant within Mzimba (now M’mbelwa) District/City Council within 12 months from the date that the Claimant serves this judgment on the Defendant. It is so ordered. This court also directs the Claimant to personally serve this judgment on the Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N), the Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Local Government, Unity and Culture, the Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Education, Council of Mzuzu University and the Chief Executive Officers for Mzimba (now M’Mbelwa) District Council and Mzuzu City Council respectively. It is so ordered. The Claimant shall furnish to this court proof of service of this judgment on all of these governmental Ministries, Departments and Agencies, the Council of Mzuzu University and the Chief Executive Officers as the case may be through their principal physical addresses out of which they carry on their core official business within 7 days after effecting this service on all of them. It is so ordered. In directing this manner of service of this judgment on these governmental Ministries, Departments and Agencies, the Council of Mzuzu University and the Chief Executive Officers this court was keenly aware of Order 8 rule 19 of the 2017 Rules which states that all documents required to be served on the Government for the purpose of, or in connection with, any proceeding by or against the Government must be served on the Attorney General or upon another public officer or Government department expressly authorized by a written law to institute or defend the proceeding in question on behalf of the Government. This court considers that having defaulted in defending this legal action for reasons that were not explained to this court the Ministries, Departments and Agencies within the Malawi Government that the Claimant should ideally have joined as parties to this legal action are the ones that this court has directed the service of its judgment upon. It is so ordered. This court further takes the view that the service of this judgment as directed by this court is justified by the fact that this court observed that the administrative mandate and machinery within the Executive branch of the Malawi 6 Government through and within which this dispute can effectively be resolved to its finality lies in the effective cooperation of these governmental Ministries, Departments and Agencies as well as the Chief Executive Officers to some extent the Council of Mzuzu University excepted. It is so ordered. The interests of the Council of Mzuzu University and those of the Ministry of Education would most adversely be affected if this court got persuaded to grant the Claimant the order of permanent injunction that he sought against the Defendant. This court therefore directed the Claimant to personally serve this judgment on all of these third parties to this legal action with full knowledge that these third parties needed to be informed about and made aware of the legal issues that this legal action raised. It is so directed. 5.4 Through paragraph 5 of his statement of case dated 29" September, 2020 the Claimant admitted that the customary land that he previously occupied got converted into public land on which Mzuzu University, Mzuzu Teachers Training College together with Foundation and Demonstration Primary Schools as well as Luwinga Secondary School subsequently got constructed. This court noted that all these are public facilities of great importance in the public educational services provision sector of this country that members of the general public access to further their educational, teaching professional and employment needs. It is on this basis that this court declines to grant the Claimant the alternative order that the government should vacate these public facilities forthwith. It is so ordered. Education is a right that has a great positive impact on the developmental needs of not only any member of the general public but also on this nation as a whole. Section 25(1) of the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Malawi (“the Constitution”) is clear that all persons are entitled to education. Section 30(1) of the Constitution is also clear that all persons and peoples have a right to development and therefore to the enjoyment of economic, social, cultural and political development... Section 30(2) of the Constitution obliges the Malawi Government to take all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development. These measures include among others equality of opportunity for afl in their access to among others ... education. Education is a princiole of national policy pursuant to section 13(f) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision states that the Malawi Government must actively promote the welfare and development of the people of this country by progressively adopting and implementing policies and legislation aimed at achieving the goal of education by providing adequate resources to the education sector and devising programmes that among others ... eliminate illiteracy in this country. To grant the Claimant an order that the government should vacate these public facilities as the Claimant urged this court to do would not only defeat the progress that the public educational sector of this country has made through the adoption and implementation of public education policies that led to their construction and subsequent operationalization but would also unjustly enrich the Claimant with the assistance of this court. It is so ordered. The Claimant did not certainly construct any of these public facilities so there is no loss and damage in this respect that this court would be compelled to make good for him by an order of this court that directed the vacation of these public facilities through this judgment. It is so ordered. The Claimant did also not allege anything in his statement of case dated 29" September, 2020 that spoke to the condition in which the customary land that he previously occupied got acquired and converted into public land for an order that the government do vacate the public land now in dispute to be justifiable in the circumstances of this case. It is so ordered. In any event the Claimant stated no particularized matters in his statement of case dated 29" September, 2020 that spoke to what would become of these public facilities if they got vacated. It is so ordered. 5.5 This court also declines to grant the Claimant the order of permanent injunction through which he sought to restrain the government from exercising ownership of the customary land that the Claimant previously occupied that he admitted got acquired and converted into public land by agreement with the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) until he is adequately compensated for the same reasons that this court has declined to grant the Claimant the alternative order that the government should vacate the public land on which Mzuzu University, Mzuzu Teachers Training College together with Foundation and Demonstration Primary Schools as well as Luwinga Secondary School currently are forthwith. It is so ordered. The land that is in dispute is no longer customary in nature. It is so ordered. It is public land. It is so ordered. Its occupation and use by the Defendant are not unlawful on a correct and proper understanding of section 45(1)(b) of the Land Act (Cap. 57:01 of the Laws of Malawi) which provides for how persons who under this Act are deemed to be unlawfully using or occupying public land must be dealt with. The occupation and use proceeded on the basis of the agreement that the Claimant admitted he concluded with the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N). What remains for this agreement to be fully implemented is its performance on the part of the Defendant by ensuring that the Claimant is allocated some alternative land within Mzimba (now M’mbelwa) by the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) in fulfillment and observance of the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement through which the customary land that the Claimant previously occupied got acquired and converted into public land. It is so ordered. 5.6 As regards the question of law whether or not the Claimant should be compensated for the alleged customary Jand that he allegecly previously occupied as prayed by him in his application for a default judgment against the Defendant this court noted that there are various principles of law that come into play here for its consideration in order to do justice in this case given its judicial mandate to responsibly interpret, protect and enforce the Constitution and all laws in accordance with this Constitution in an independent and impartial manner bearing in mind only legally relevant facts and the prescriptions of law pursuant to section 9 of the Constitution. This court found on the basis of the relevant facts of this dispute and the evidential documents that are on the file of this court that the Claimant and the Defendant through the public office of the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) agreed by letter dated 5" November, 2018 that the Commissioner addressed to the Claimant in his capacity as Village Headman Towera Singini to allocate the Claimant some alternative land. It is so found. This court also found based on this same letter that the Commissioner admitted that it was resolved that the Claimant would be allocated some alternative land “within Mzimba (now M'mbelwa) for development purposes” through this public office. Section 28(1) of the Constitution states that every person should be able to acquire property either alone or in association with others. Section 28(2) of the Constitution states that no person must arbitrarily be deprived of property. It would be a continuous violation of the right to property that the Claimant has pursuant to section 28(1) of the Constitution and also an arbitrary deprivation of his previously-occupied customary land pursuant to section 28(2) of the Constitution for the current alleged situation that allegedly led to this legal action to continue unattended to. It is so ordered. Given that the Claimant admitted that he concluded an agreement with the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) for the admitted acquisition of his customary land and its admitted subsequent conversion into public land subject to him getting allocated some alternative land this court contextually considers that for the Claimant to now raise the new issue of this alleged compensation would be to ask this court to vary this pre-existing agreement without this court having heard the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) about whether or not this proposed variation is agreed to. This cannot be. It is so ordered. This court reiterates that despite its finding that this alleged compensation issue is contextually new there is nothing in law that would deny the Claimant and the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) the liberty to negotiate this issue of compensation within the context of the agreement that they concluded which must now be fully implemented for considerations that are fully disclosed and made in good faith if they are minded to do so. It is so ordered. The Lands Acquisition and Compensation Act (Cap. 58:04 of the Laws of Malawi) as amended by the Lands Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2022 (No. 14 of 2022) is the legal basis on which any payable compensation would be determined and quantified in the event that for some just cause no suitable alternative land to allocate to the Claimant were available. It is so ordered. 5.7 In arriving at this decision this court was keenly aware of the fact that in bringing this application before this court there were irregularities not only in this present application but also in the case commencement documents themselves. These irregularities comprised the facts that the summons that the Claimant filed was not compliant with Form 1 that the 2017 Rules prescribe the Claimant or his legal practitioners having not dated or signed it; the Application Supporting Sworn Statement for an order of default judgment dated 16" May, 2023 had no prayer for any orders and did not indicate its deponent on its face: the procuction and exhibit of the non-commissioned first page only of the initial directions merkec “CML” and not a certified copy of the summons itself with ali of its served pages intact: and the different names that the court documents show for the Claimant who is variously- named as Chinganganga Singini, Tryson Chinganganga Singini and Tryson Chinganganga Village Headman Towera Singini. The Defendant received and acknowledged the service of these defective court documents in this condition. The Defendant went further and actually filed the response to them dated 4°” November. 2020. The Defendant chose to not then proceed to defend this legal action by filing and serving a defence on the Claimant. This is therefore a good case in which this court should rely on Order 2 rule | of the 2017 Rules read together with Order 2 rule 10 2 of these same rules. It is so ordered. More so particularly within the context of this application in which there is undisputed default in complying with Order 5 rule 7(2)(b) of the 2017 Rules read together with Order 7 rule 5 of these same rules which resulted in the present application. It is so ordered. Order 2 rule 1 of the 2017 Rules states that failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity. Order 2 rule 2 of the 2017 Rules states that notwithstanding rule | of this Order an irregularity tn a proceeding or a document does not render them a nullity. It is so ordered. Section 5 of the General Interpretation Act (Cap. 1:01 of the Laws of Malawi) (“the General Interpretation Act”) further states that where a form is prescribed or specified by any written law deviations from it that do not materially affect the substance or are not calculated to mislead do not invalidate the form used. In any event the question whether or not it is fair and just to let the Claimant get away with these irregularities did not arise for this court to resolve within the context of this application for the obvious reason that the Defendant chose not to defend this legal action on this basis or on any other legal basis. It is so ordered. It is these findings that compelled this court to balance the competing issues that specifically then arose in this application which related to the questions whether or not the sought order of defau‘t judgment was to be granted to the Claimant on the basis of the irregularly-defective court documents that he relied upon in his application or declined on the same basis thereby denying him an effective remedy to his plight which he is entitled to pursuant to section 41(3) of the Constitution. Section 41(3) of the Constitution guarantees the right of every person to an effective remedy by a court of law for acts that violate the rights end freedoms that this Constitution guarantees. It is so ordered. A pertinent question that this court consequently asked itself was whether or not it would be just in the specific circumstances of this application to deny the Claimant the order of default judgment he sought through this application when he served all the court process in its defective condition on the Defendant whose public office constitutionally serves as the principal legal advisor to the Malawi Government but for some unknown reasons the Defendant opted not to defend this legal action. The Claimant has a right pursuant to section 41(2) of the Constitution to access this court which has jurisdiction over his claim for final settlement of the legal issues that it raised. This court also considered that it is just in the specific circumstances of this application to grant the order of default judgment to some extent to avoid and arrest the situation in which the Claimant would continue to find himself without his previously-occupied, possessed and used 11 customary land, without any alternative land to it as agreed with the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) and also without any compensation for the customary land that got acquired and converted into public land yet years are going. It is so ordered. 5.8 It would be remiss on the part of this court for this court not to make it clear that in arriving at this decision this court was also keenly aware of the numerous case authorities such as Brett Wilson LLP v. Persons Unknown, Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.solicitorsfromitelluk.com [2016] 1 AN ER 1006 which highlight and hold that in dealing with an application for a default judgment this court need not get into the merits and the demerits of this dispute by delving into the available evidence. This is well and good if an application for a default judgment proceeds before this court on the basis of the English Rules of the Supreme Court which co-exist with the 2017 Rules in their application to civil causes in this court dependent on their commencement date. This court thoughtfully considers that this present specific matter which should not even have ended up in this court for its final resolution is uniquely-different. The Claimant commenced it before this court pursuant to the 2017 Rules which enabled this court to have the documentary evidence that the Claimant relied upon to prove his claim against the Defendant upfront on the file of this court. The allegations contained in the statement of case dated 29'" September, 2020 and the supporting evidence for therm contained in the list of documents also dated 29" September, 2020 must in the circumstances all be deemed to be admitted by the Defendant in default of a defence to them. It is so ordered. This in the view of this court ensures that there is no continuing unnecessary further delay in the resolution of the substance of the dispute that gave rise to this present application to its finality once and for all. It is so ordered. 5.9 An alleged contentious matter that also allegedly arose within the context of this dispute allegedly related to the alleged size of the alternative land that the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) agreed to allocate to the Claimant. The Claimant alleged that while the customary land that the government acquired from him and converted into public land allegedly comprised 2.3 hectares in its alleged size the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) allegedly sought to allocate the Claimant alternative land that was allegedly less than an acre in its alleged size which the Claimant was allegedly required to pay fees for yet he had allegedly voluntarily surrendered the 12 customary land and agreed to its acquisition and subsequent conversion into public land without being paid any compensation for it. The statement of case dated 29" September, 2020 did not allege any reasons or factors that justified this alleged turn of events. This is what constrained this court from therefore delving into this matter with a view to resolving it within the context of this judgment. It is so ordered. This court takes judicial notice pursuant to section 3 of the General Interpretation Act of the fact that the Land Survey Act (Cap. 59:03 of the Laws of Malawi) became operational on 1 September, 2017. Section 3(1) of this Act established the office of the Surveyor General. This alleged contentious matter is therefore within the mandate of the Surveyor General to deal with, determine and resolve. It is so ordered. The parties are at liberty to engage the services of the Surveyor General for the purpose of determining the accurate sizes of any available alternative land compared to the customary land which got acquired and converted into public land prior to its allocation to the Claimant as this judgment has ordered. It is so ordered. The parties shall share any proposed cost of this engagement in equal portions unless a lawful waiver of the payment of these fees is permissible. It is so ordered. 5.10 This court has granted the Claimant the order of default judgment that he sought against the Defendant for the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) to allocate some alternative land to him for the reasons stated in this judgment. This court therefore partly allows the application the Claimant made for entry of a default judgment against the Defendant for an order that the Claimant be allocated some alternative land. It is so ordered. This court dismisses the application the Claimant made for a default judgment to be entered against the Defendant for an alternative order that the government must vacate the land on which Mzuzu University, Mzuzu Teachers Training College together with Foundation and Demonstration Primary Schools as well as Luwinga Secondary School are forthwith. It is so ordered. This court also dismisses the application the Claimant made for an order of permanent injunction that restrained the government from exercising ownership of the customary land that the Claimant previously occupied that the Claimant admitted got acquired by the Malawi Government and converted into public land until he is adequately compensated. It is so ordered. This court having noted that the Claimant is variously-named as Chinganganga Singini, Tryson Chinganganga Singini and Tryson Chinganganga Village Headman Towera Singini in the documents that are before this court this court 13 directs that in allocating the Claimant some alternative land within the | year timeline that this court has ordered in compliance with this judgment the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) must demand from the Claimant a certified copy of his Malawi Government national identity card that the Director for National Registration issued him with pursuant to section 13(1) of the National Registration Act (Cap. 24:01 of the Laws of Malawi) read together with Regulation 12 of the National Registration Regulations. It is so ordered. Section 13(1) of this Act allows the Director for National Registration to issue an identity card to every person registered under this Act. An identity card issued under this Act is prima facie proof of the particulars of an individual that the national register contains under section 17 of this Act. Regulation 12 of the National Registration Regulations allows the Director for National Registration to issue an identity card after receipt of an application for registration in the national register in the prescribed form and manner. Form NR4 contained in the Schedule to the Act is a depiction of the national identity card for Malawian citizens while Form NRS contained in the same Schedule is the depiction of an identity card for non-Malawian citizens. In terms of Regulation 19 of the National Registration Regulations Form NR7 is a depiction of the national register that the Director for National Registration keeps and maintains or causes to be kept and maintained. This court orders the Claimant to furnish to the Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) a certified copy of his national identity card on demand. It is so ordered. The Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) is at liberty to consult and liaise with the Ministry of Local Government, Unity and Culture and the Chief Executive Officers for Mzimba (now M’mbelwa) District Council and Mzuzu City Council in determining the lawfulness or otherwise of the appointment of the Claimant as Village Headman Towera Singini pursuant to section 9 of the Chiefs Act [Cap. 22:03 of the Laws of Malawi]. It ts so ordered. The Regional Commissioner for Lands (N) is also at liberty to seek and receive professionally-sound legal advice from his/her own Counsel should any matter of the lawfulness or otherwise of the appointment of the Claimant as Village Headman Towera Singini and its legal implications for this claim if any arise. It is so ordered. 5.11 Section 30 of the Courts Act [Cap. 3:02 of the Laws of Malawi] states that costs of court proceedings are in the discretion of a court. Order 31 rule 1(a)(b) and (c) of the 2017 Rules amplifies this issue, Order 31 rule 3(1)(a) of the 2017 Rules states that 14 this court has discretion as regards whether or not costs must be paid by one party to another. Order 31 rule 3(1)(b) of the 2017 Rules states that this court has discretion to decide the amount of any payable costs. Order 31 rule 3(1)(c) of the 2017 Rules states that this court has discretion to decide when costs must be paid. Order 31 rule 3(2) of the 2017 Rules states that where this court decides that costs must be paid, an unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs of a successful party. This court exercises its discretion on costs to make no order for casts. It is so ordered. 6. THE RIGHT OF APPEAL OF THE DEFENDANT AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT 6.1 The Defendant has a right to appeal against this judgment pursuant to section 21 of the Supreme Court of Appeal Act [Cap. 3:01 of the Laws of Malawi]. This provision states that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Appeal from any judgment of a High Court or Judge in any civil cause or matter. This court declines to grant the Defendant leave to appeal against this judgment defore a full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal. It is so ordered. This court confirms that the Defendant is at liberty to apply to this court for an order to set this judgment aside. It is so ordered. In the event that the Defendant considered making this application the reasons that would justify such an application would need to be persuasively-compelling and serious. It is so ordered. This court is of the strong view that this dispute is straight- forward. It ts therefore in the interests of justice for the parties themselves to ensure that they cooperate fully in resolving this dispute to its finality. The parties have the responsibility pursuant to Order 1 rule 5(3) of the 2017 Rules to assist this court in achieving the overriding objective of these rules which among cthers urges this court pursuant to Order | rule 5(1)(e) of these same 2017 Rules to allocate an appropriate share of the public resources of this court to this matter bearing tn mind that it is these same public resources that must also be allocated to other court matters that fell for their hearing, determination and disposal before this court. It is so ordered. Th . Delivered at Mzuzu this 20 day of. Ku GN ST M. KONDOWE JUDGE 15