By The Forum
Attorney and anti-corruption campaigner Alexious Kamangira has challenged a High Court ruling that found him liable for defamation against High Court Judge Kenan Manda, arguing that the law does not permit summary judgment in defamation matters.
The ruling, delivered by High Court Judge Howard Pemba on Monday, followed an application filed last Friday by Manda’s lawyer seeking to have Kamangira’s defence struck out.
Manda’s legal representative, Michael Chipeta, argued that Kamangira had failed to comply with directions issued during a scheduling conference on 5 March 2025. Those directions required the parties to file witness statements and written legal submissions summarising their cases within 21 days.
Pemba agreed with the application and allowed the matter to proceed in Kamangira’s absence.
The judge further ordered that the assessment of compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages be referred to the Registrar of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal for determination on a date yet to be set.
In his order, Pemba said: “The defendant is hereby permanently restrained, whether by himself, his servants, agents, associates, legal practitioners, or any person acting at his direction or procurement, from publishing or causing to be published the same or substantially similar defamatory words concerning the claimant.”
The court also ordered Kamangira to get rid of the offending publications served with the order.
“The defendant shall within 24 hours of service of this order, remove, delete, take down or procure the removal of the offending publications complained of in the statement of case and any materially similar publication within his custody, power or control.”
Kamangira has rejected the ruling, maintaining that summary judgment was improperly applied in a defamation case.
Manda’s claim, filed in October 2024, sought K250 million in damages, a public apology and an order restraining Kamangira from making or disseminating further allegedly defamatory statements.
At the centre of the dispute are allegations regarding Judge Manda’s conduct while presiding over matters in the Commercial Division of the High Court. The allegations have attracted attention within financial crime enforcement circles and among legal stakeholders, who have raised concerns about judicial decisions that could weaken Malawi’s financial crime framework.
On 4 April 2024, the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA) formally wrote to the Chief Justice, warning of what it described as troubling patterns in judicial decisions that risked undermining the enforcement of financial crime laws.
According to the Platform for Investigative Journalism (PIJ), one of the cases cited by the FIA involved Zahra Ali v First Capital Bank, where a preservation order freezing K100 million, issued by the Financial Crimes Division, was effectively neutralised by an injunction from the Commercial Division directing the release of the same funds.
PIJ reported that the injunction raised concerns about possible “forum shopping”, whereby litigants seek favourable rulings from different divisions of the High Court, potentially frustrating efforts to enforce financial crime legislation.
According to PIJ, the Chief Justice acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns and referred the matter to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for disciplinary review. However, the FIA reportedly criticised the process for its lack of transparency and slow progress.
The Malawi Law Society also expressed concern, describing the inquiry as “overly secretive and slow” and noting that, despite investigations being initiated, little information has been made public regarding findings or outcomes.
Pemba’s ruling on Monday came just two days after the application to strike out Kamangira’s defence was filed. The speed of the decision has drawn attention, particularly given Kamangira’s long-standing criticism of delays in Malawi’s court system as part of his anti-corruption advocacy within the judiciary.
—
Also Read: Malawi Elections 2025: Court laughs off shoddy challenge to MEC
