IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL
CAUSE NO. 912 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SUNGANI NTANDE…………………………………..APPLICANT

AND

NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY…………………..RESPONDENT

CORAM: CHOMBO,
J

Khonyongwa, Counsel for the Applicant

Hara,
Counsel for the Respondent

Chulu,
Court Interpreter

R U L I N G

This
is an application by the applicant, asking the Court to issue an
order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants
from
possessing his vehicle.

The
action arises from somewhat unfortunate events in which the applicant
finds himself. The applicant herein was a purchaser
of a vehicle
that was subject to a seizure order. He bought the said vehicle on
24^th
June 2006 through a public action and thereafter successfully changed
the ownership with authentic letters from the Trust Auctioneers.

On
the 11^th
July 2006 the applicant was served with a court order that
effectively demanded that the Sheriff return all goods seized from
one Pastor Kaombe in Civil Cause No. 771 of 2006 registered at the
Principal Registry in Blantyre; the said goods included the subject

matter of these proceedings. On 4^th
August 2006 the vehicle was seized from him on the said court order.

This
application now is an attempt by the applicant to prevent the
defendant from seizing, but if already seized, not to change

ownership of the said motor vehicle and have it delivered back to him
until the determination of an application for mandatory injunction

made by him. The application was supported by an affidavit and
skeletal arguments.

The
respondent filed an affidavit opposing the said application. Skeletal
arguments were also submitted as part of the evidence.
In their
affidavit the respondent allege that the applicant’s application
should be dismissed on the fact that it is an abuse
of the court
process.

I repeat the fact that the applicant finds
himself as a victim of circumstances. Looking at the sequence of
events and the law
in force the application of the applicant cannot
be granted as the effects thereof would tantamount to asking this
court to make
an order that is inconsistent with the court order of
7^th July 2006. It will, therefore, not be necessary to go
into further details of the position of the parties.

However, the applicant is not without a remedy,
he has every right to proceed against the Trust Auctioneers and
recover the sale
price and any other costs incidental thereto.

I
disallow the application and order that costs be in the cause.

Made
in Chambers this 25^th
September 2006.

E.J.
Chombo

JUDGE