IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI
LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY
CIVIL CAUSE NO 256 OF 1998
BETWEEN :
H.B. NANDORA PLAINTIFF
-and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .. DEFENDANT
CORAM : KAMANGA I.C. (MRS), JUDGE
Theu; Counsel for the Plaintiff
Gonaulinji; Court Interpreter
R U L I N G
This matter comes before this court under Section 8 of the Civil Procedure (suits by or against the Government or Public Officers Act (Cap 6:01). The defendant is unavailable and unrepresented. There is notice that the defendant is aware of the proceeding, and we shall proceed with the same as no reasons for absence have been explained.
The background to the application is that the plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant on 15th May 1998.
A judgment in default of Notice of Intention to Defendant was entered in the plaintiffs favour on 28th October 1998. As the plaintiff had been seeking the balance of his terminal benefits for the period 24th January 1996 to December 1997, general and special damages for negligence in omitting to pay the terminal benefits within reasonable time as well as interest; there was need for an assessment to be done. A date was set down for the assessment. Notice of hearing was given to the defendant who once more did not attend. An assessment of damages was done on 9th April 2001. A certificate of order against government was issued on 25th March 2002. Nothing was paid. An order fixing time within which the defendant was to satisfy judgment was made on 2nd December 2002. It was ordered that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a sum of K40, 554.00 and interest at 20% per annum from 9th April 2002. The defendant was served and they acknowledged on 9th December 2002. No payment was made. In December 2003, the plaintiff served the defendant with a summons for execution of a decree against the government seeking government to honour the courts order. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the summon. No attention was taken on the defendants part to pay. Another application was made for execution of a decree against government which is the subject of this ruling. It is unfortunate that the defendants are choosing to frustrate the plaintiff by deliberately failing to provide the plaintiff with the fruits of the litigation process that was undertaken. It is more unfortunate that the defendant, who is supposed to be a pacesetter in so far as setting a exemplary behaviour in committing to the courts jurisdiction having chosen to blatantly ignore to do so. This is unfortunate especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the claim is for benefits after the plaintiff had provided his services to the defendant. Continuance, on the defendants part in failing to oblige to the order is tantamount to a breach of the plaintiffs legitimate expectation to enjoy the fruits of his labour.
Considering that there is no action being taken whenever an order is made for the defendant to honour the judgment, I give the plaintiff the liberty to execute against the defendant. The costs for the execution shall also be borne by the defendant.
MADE in Chambers this 29th day of August 2005 at Lilongwe.
I.C. Kamanga (Mrs)
J U D G E