Wednesday, 14 May 2014

In Bishop Kayira Bwanaissa Kaponda Karonga v Electoral Commission (EC), the plaintiff sought for an injunction to:
- stop the EC from conducting the tripartite elections on the 20th of May 2014;
- an order disqualifying all Parliamentary candidates who were nominated whilst they were public officers;
- an order calling for fresh nominations in all the constituencies where such candidates have been disqualified;
- and an order mandating the President to call for a national referendum within a shortest period possible on the issue of bringing back the repealed Section 64 of the Constitution (on recall of Parliamentarians by their constituents) and Sections 65 and 86 of the Constitution which, makes them ineffective.

The Court in dismissing the application pompo pompo (per Kapindu J) said:
"The Applicant states that he is the President of the African Nyasaland Party, a party duly registered in accordance with the laws of Malawi. The issues he has raised directly relate to the exercise of the people of Malawi of their political rights, rights which are of immediate and direct concern to the Applicant as a leader of a political party. The application that he has made presents a cocktail of frivolous and vexatious claims on the one hand, and good and arguable claims, that raise serious questions to be tried on some important constitutional issues, on the other. I will summarily address the frivolous and vexatious aspects as I address the issue of the balance of convenience below"
Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643, holds:
"A frivolous [application] is one readily recognizable as devoid of merit, as one having little prospect of success.  The reasons may vary.  A vexatious [application] is one taken to annoy or embarrass the opposite party, sometimes fuelled by the hope of financial recovery to relieve the respondent's aggravation"

No comments:

Post a Comment