IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE
REGISTRY

MISC.
CIVIL CAUSE NO 43 OF 2005

BETWEEN
:

THE
STATE

-v-

THE
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KASUNGU….1^st
RESPONDENT

-and-

THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………2^nd
RESPONDENT

EX-PARTE
FRANKSON PHIRI AND OTHERS …… APPLICANT

CORAM : HON.
JUSTICE A.K.C. NYIRENDA

Kita;
Counsel for the Applicant

Ntaba;
Counsel for the Respondent

Mlenga;
Court Interpreter

R
U L I N G

HON.
NYIRENDA, J.

The
applicant, by this application, seeks extension of time for applying
for leave to move for judicial review. It is trite that
an
application for leave to move for judicial review must be made
promptly as the circumstances of the case will allow, and in
any
event such application must be made within three months from the date
when grounds of the application first arose. The court
however has
power to extend time if it considers that there are “good
reasons”
for doing so, see Order 53/14/58 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The
decisions which the applicants wishes to challenge was made on the
6^th
of October 2004 when His Excellency the State President installed
Staphano Chisale as Traditional Authority Simlemba instead of

himself. This application was filed on 7^th
July 2005, nine months after the decision sought to be challenged.
Obviously the applicant is out of time and therefore that the
matter
can only be salvaged upon good reasons.

The
reasons for the delay given by the applicant are that when he learnt
that some other person was about to be installed Traditional

Authority Simlemba he, with others, took up the matter with the
Secretary for Local Government and the District Commissioner,
Kasungu. The matter was indeed discussed and they were told a
decision would be made. While waiting for the decision the State

President went ahead and installed Staphano Chisale. The applicant
went back to the District Commissioner and eventually to the

Secretary for Local Government to query the development. He says
the Secretary for Local Government was equally surprised with
the
development because Staphano Chisale was not on the list of those
who were to be installed chieftaincy because the matter
was still to
be resolved. The applicant and his people continued to discuss the
matter with the Secretary for Local Government
and was after sometime
told that there was nothing that could be done about the matter. It
was at that time that he thought of
consulting lawyers who in
assisting him warned that the matter was out of time for purposes of
judicial review.

As
pointed out earlier this application came to court nine months after
the decision of the State President. Strictly speaking,
the only
reason why the applicants did not come to court within three months
is because they were not aware of legal requirements
in such matters.
What is also true however, on the facts, is that the applicant felt
that the most appropriate place for discussing
chieftaincy matters is
at the District Commissioner and the Ministry of Local Government.
Otherwise the applicant would have rushed
to court within three
months from the date of the decision or a little while thereafter.
In a way the applicant was right because
courts should be reluctant
to intervene in matters of selection of chiefs which are matters
properly in the domain of public administration
and custom. There
are a number of variables for consideration which courts are usually
ill equipped to appreciate. These are
matters where courts should in
my view, be slow to intervene.

In
the instant case the court is being called upon to intervene in a
decision that is now over one year. It is in this regard
that it has
been said:

“….
even if satisfied that there is “good reason” the court may
refuse leave to extend time because to grant such a relief would
be
likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice
the rights of any person or would be detrimental to good

administration.”

See
R
vs Stratford on Avon District Council, exp Jackson [1985]1 WLR 1319.

In
my considered opinion it is now way out of time for this court to
attempt upset what has administratively been put in place.
I believe
this is the kind of situation which is better left to administrative
resolution through the good offices of the Ministry
of Local
Government and perhaps the Office of the President.

The
result of these considerations is that this application must fail and
I dismiss it.

The
respondents have not sought costs of the application. I therefore
make no order for costs.

MADE
in Chambers at Lilongwe this 17^th
day of February 2006.

A.K.C.
Nyirenda

J
U D G E