Telecom Networks Malawi Plc v Chidzanja & 46 Others (MSCA Miscellaneous Civil Application 31 of 2024) [2024] MWHCCiv 25 (30 October 2024)

Mt phe appli IN THE MALAWI SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL SITTING AT BLANTYRE MSCA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION 31 OF 2024 [From High Court, Principal Registry, Civil Division, Appeal Number 19 of 2022 Being IRC Matter No 84 of 2018] BETWEEN TELECOM NETWORKS MALAWI PLC APPLICANT/APPELLANT DAN CHIDZANJA & 46 OTHERS “CORAM: — HON. L P CHIKOPA SC: Mwangomba Mr. “ick XY the meg applicant . Ms. ie ®," © aN % % J Ney % Me RULING/ORDER _ We heard fours geht ions‘ip this matter, First was an ex parte application from @ ny or a A oP execution. We granted the order and inter alia further . ‘ 5 ordered that all her parties application be filed within 14 days of the me . immediatel\ Va oregoing order to decide on the continued subsistence of the order of stay. *.. +0 Second we heard an inter parties application whether or not to extend the order . . of stay. We reserved the ruling. i Third was an application from the applicant praying for an order for -‘“disclosures/production of documents’, It was heard together with the second application. The ruling was also reserved. Fourth was an application from the respondent seeking a vacation of the order of stay granted ex parte. The ruling was also reserved. Both parties filed affidavits in support and against the applications together with written arguments for which we are most thankful. The factual context is not complicated. The respondnets were awarded, by the Industrial Relations Court, the sums of K625,998,475.22 and K68,026,356 in relation to their claims against the applicant. The total amount was on appeal in the High Court reduced to K610,170,401.38. Half of that sum has ateady been paid by the applicant. They now pray that payment of the balance" bg stayed pending the hearing of an appeal against the judgment of the High court, (A Poray Mopposed by the respondnets. gn tb, “Yee Ay 4 ~, “ @ From the applicant we have heard the usual arguments ‘about their appeal having 4 nef! } merits, about the respondents’ impecuniosity, gatory appeals and how the interests of justice weigh more towards, the ‘5 istefance of the stay than a vacation. We also heard that the prayehy sfor ‘isclosutes and documents was vital in view of the fact that the respondéhits have been Tnwilling to voluntarily make full disclosures about their financial pesition. \ @, & cETR., a The respondnets | on thetdther hand fk that the applicant’s applications are no more than a gimitpick’ to, delay these) proteédings and further keep them away from the proceeds of, a sdeceshy LPation. Specifically about the prayer for disclosures and documents they, thibk ht this should have preceded the application for stay and the| Giegation ‘that the respondents are persons without means. As it is the application is s broth mata fides and should therefore be dismissed with costs. When everyttihg is said and done whether or not to grant a stay, indeed any prayer, is in the judicious discretion of the court before whom the application is made. Guided primarily by what is deemed by the court to be in the interests of justice. In the instant case we already granted a stay. We did that because we believed it was in the interests of justice that a stay be granted. We have now heard the respondents. And the applicants again. We are still of the view that the interests ~ will therefore attract sanctions. of justice weigh more towards continuing the stay than vacating it. They stay will therefore continue subject to our further orders/directions hereinbelow. Meaning as of necessity that the respondents’ application to vacate the stay has failed. Coming to the application for ‘disclosures/production of documents’ it is in the circumstances of this case otiose. It was meant to support an application for a stay. The stay has been granted notwithstanding the presence/absence of the information/documents sought. The application is dismissed for irrelevance. Having determined as above it is our further order that the partigs should within - 28 days from this day present themselves before tye sit, ‘i and @’ appe ‘thereat agree on a enaInas towards the determina a herein. “<. This matter is continuing. (~ “~\ ee - Dated at Blantyre this of o day of dobar » EPUTY CHIEF JUS STICE )