By Falles Kamanga
BLANTYRE-(MaraviPost)-The embattled lawyer Alexious Kamangila should not draw sympathy from the public by misleading it. A caveat: I hate corruption in all its manifestations.
Firstly, I should mention that I have attached screenshots of the Orders from the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules [hereinafter referred to as the CPR] for reference, as my discussion will refer to those screenshots.
The first screenshot is of Order 12 Rule 23 of the CPR, which deals with summary judgment, while the second screenshot is of Order 14, which deals with pre-trial procedure.
To begin with, I agree with Kamangila that Order 12 Rule 23 of the CPR prohibits the entry of summary judgment in defamation cases, as can clearly be seen from the first screenshot.
However, I would like to point out that what the court has done in this matter is not the entry of summary judgment under Order 12. Rather, the court applied Order 14, which relates to pre-trial procedure.
As shown in the second screenshot, under Rule 2(4), the court has the power to make directions regarding the conduct of the trial.
That is exactly what the court did a few days ago (I am sure many people remember this, as Kamangila himself was broadcasting it on his page).
Further, under Rule 5(b), if a party fails to comply with the court’s directions, the judge has the power to strike out the defence where the non-compliance is by the defendant.
This is precisely what the court did in this case. The court struck out the defence due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s directions and consequently entered judgment in favour of the claimant.
Therefore, Kamangila should not mislead people. He lost the case because of his own failure to comply with the directions of the court, not because of corruption, as he is now claiming.”
A summary judgment is a procedural mechanism through which a court may determine a civil case without proceeding to a full trial, where there is no genuine dispute of material facts and one party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is therefore not a trial on evidence, but a determination based on the pleadings and supporting affidavits.
Under Malawian civil procedure, summary judgment is available in appropriate civil matters, and there is no legal rule that categorically excludes defamation claims from its scope.
Like other civil causes of action, a defamation claim may be subject to early disposal where the claimant fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action or where there is no realistic prospect of success on essential elements such as falsity, publication, or reputational harm.
It is important, however, to distinguish summary judgment from default judgment.
In Manda v Kamangila, what is often being referenced is not a summary judgment entered after substantive evaluation of a triable issue, but rather a judgment entered due to procedural non-compliance by a party. These are legally distinct processes with different thresholds and implications.
Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to state that Malawian law prohibits summary judgment in defamation cases.
Any suggestion of such an absolute rule does not reflect the position of the law and risks misleading readers on a settled procedural principle.
Finally, the aim here is simply to clarify the legal position. It is not to impute bias or corruption to the judiciary or any individual actor.
Precision in legal commentary is important, especially where public understanding of procedural law may be affected.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are those of the author not necessarily of The Maravi Post or Editor
Leave a Reply