IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE
DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL
CASE NO 618 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

LILONGWE
STREET VENDORS

ASSOCIATION
……………………………………….PLAINTIFF

-AND-

LILONGWE
CITY ASSEMBLY …………………….DEFENDANT

CORAM: HON.
JUSTICE NYIRENDA

Counsel
for the Plaintiff, D.S.L. Kumange

Counsel
for the defendant, I. Nkhoma (Ms)

Official
Interpreter, H. Njirayafa

RULING

I will in due
course draw up a more detailed ruling in this matter but realizing
the urgency of the situation in question I have
the following points
to make in the determination of the matter which will translate into
the formal ruling.

This matter can be
disposed of on a few basic considerations. When the matter first
came to court it was by way of an exparte application
for
interlocutory injunction under cover of a certificate of urgency.
When my sister Judge, Justice Kamanga, perused the application
and
the supporting affidavits and exhibits, she was of the view that
owing to the nature of the issues in question it was only
appropriate
that the application should proceed interparte; she ordered
accordingly. This was on the 12^th
of April, 2006. Because the application was said to be urgent,
there was no accompanying summons or any pleadings on the
substantive
action at that time.

The plaintiff has
come back to courts now with an interparte application. As of the
date of hearing the application, the 3^rd
of May, 2006, the substantive action had not been filed. This court
inquired from Learned Counsel on behalf of the defendant why
that was
the case. It became apparent that counsel had simply not addressed
his mind to that aspect of the matter. For that reason
alone, this
court is constrained from dealing with this application. The
application simply has no footing or status and at law.
The
application therefore simply collapses.

There is yet
another point raised by counsel for the defendant which I thought was
virtually conceded by counsel for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has
no legal personality in that although it is referred to as an
association it is not registered as such. The
result at law, which
is well known and basic law, is that the plaintiff cannot sue. Again
on this ground this application cannot
be entertained. I could have
stopped at this but it is tempting to go a little further and discuss
the matter on the facts raised
in the plaintiff’s application. I
will only say even the facts relied upon are very weak. The issue at
hand has been the subject
for protracted discussion and
negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the evidence
on record shows. The defendant
did not have to yield to the
plaintiff’s demands for the negotiations to be recognized. Before
the action taken by the defendant
the plaintiff was given more than
sufficient notice of the steps that would be taken. What is true is
that the defendant had and
has a legal duty under which the actions
that have been taken are premised.

In all therefore
the plaintiff’s application is dismissed with costs to the
defendant.

Made in Chambers
at Lilongwe this 9^th
day of May, 2006.

A.K.C.
Nyirenda

JUDGE