Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Kamuzu (Administrator of Deceased Estate) v Attorney General

Country/Territory
Malawi
Type of court
Others
Date
Jan 11, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Malawi
Seat of court
Blantyre
Judge
Phiri
Reference number
(2004) MWHC 3
Language
English
Subject
Agricultural & rural development, Land & soil
Keyword
Standing to sue Expropriation Sustainable use Agricultural land
Abstract
The plaintiff’s claim was for an injunction restraining the Malawi Government from interfering with his property rights on his ranch and for a declaration that an eviction of the plaintiff from the ranch would be in violation of his constitutional rights to own property, to engage in economic activity and not to have his property expropriated in peace time. The subject of the claim was 4636 hectares of land. The land had been given to the Late President Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda by the traditional Chiefs in the area. He raised cattle for beef there. In 1996, President Banda applied for a lease of the subject land; in 1997, the Department of Lands and Valuation rejected the application. President Banda was asked to vacate the land and relocate the herds of cattle from the ranch, as the Government was desirous of allocating the land to landless people living near or around the ranch. The said Ministry of Lands did not state the law under which the demand was being made and offered no compensation. The court noted that three issues stood to be resolved in this case: a. Whether the late President Banda had any constitutionally recognized right in the land. b. Whether the Government, by demanding that late President Banda vacate the land was infringing any of his rights guaranteed by the constitution. c. Whether the late President Banda had or his personal representative has locus standi to challenge the Government action on matter relating to the environment. The court emphasized that in recognition of the pressing need to preserve the environment, the Environmental Management Act had given locus standi to ’any person’ to bring suits to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Environmental Management Act departed from orthodox requirements for locus standi and gave any person the right to involve himself in environmental litigation. Thus, President Banda or his personal representative had a right to bring an action in the High Court to enforce the right to a clean healthy environment. Furthermore, the court was of the view that the intended Government action was injurious to the environment and that it was likely to accelerate unsustainable depletion of natural resources. There had been wanton destruction of trees and other vegetation in one part of the ranch after the President had been evicted from there. When the late President was in occupation of that part, the trees and wildlife there were used at sustainable level and in an environmentally friendly manner. The moment he moved out, people started cutting down the trees and grass wantonly. It was obvious that if the plaintiff was evicted from the rest of the ranch, a similar scenario would happen in the other sections of the ranch. The Environmental Management Act made clear that it was the duty of every person to make all necessary measures to protect the environment. The action to evict Dr. Banda from the ranch would open up the ranch to environmental degradation and unsustainable utilization of the resources therein. By allowing the Ranch to fall prey to deforesters, Government would be unashamedly derogating from its duty under both the Constitution and the Environmental Management Act. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to the sought injunction.
Full text
3.html