In this week’s round of an ongoing dispute over the validity of Malawi’s Covid-19 restrictions, the high court has ruled that the government’s planned regulations may still not be put into effect. The court has referred these challenges to the Chief Justice who will consider setting up a high court constitutional panel that would hear the problem and find a way forward. At its heart, the dispute is about whether the proposed restrictions have a valid legal base and/or contravene the constitution. But this week’s judgment also took on the attorney general’s office for having made no appearance in court when the matter was argued. The court called this a ‘snub’ and ‘astounding effrontery’.

In Their Own Words:

Read judgment in Tapvice Enterprises v Tetrade Investment Bank

Judge Pisirai Kwenda, High Court of Zimbabwe, Harare

A number of issues bedevilled this case, which was an application for rescission of a default judgment against the applicants. One problem was the responsibility of attorneys to inform parties against whom they would be appearing in court, of any change of address. And to do so, not by way of a general letter to all and sundry, as was done in this case.

But there were other concerns too. One of which was that the applicants did not include, among their documents, a copy of the order that they wanted rescinded.