High Court Judge, Kenyatta Nyirenda, on Wednesday dismissed Tay Grin’s application to nullify election results for Lilongwe City Centre Constituency.
Tay Grin, whose real name is Limbani Kalilani, lost elections in the constituency to Alfred Jiya of Malawi Congress Party (MCP).
The petition also sought to nullify results of elections in eight other constituencies where Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates lost.
The other candidates are Chris Thaulo who lost to Madalitso Kambauwa in Kasungu North East; Mary Clara Makungwa who was defeated by Ken Kandodo in Kasungu Central; Lonzoe Zimba who lost to Felix Kasinda Mbewe in Mchinji East; Ginford Maulidi who lost to Rodrick Khumbayiwa in Chikwawa East; Ben Montfort Khuleya who was defeatd by Abida Mia in Chikwawa Nkhombezi, Eta Banda who lost to Nowa Freeman Chimpeni Nkhata Bay South East, Overton As Imed who failed to defeat Idi Kalosi in Mangochi North; And Mackovie Zilirakhasu of Lilongwe East who was defeated by Ezeckiel Ching’oma.
The nine wanted the court to nullify Malawi Electoral Commission’s (MEC) declaration of the respondents as winners of the Parliamentary Election in their respective Constituencies.
Tay Grin and the others argued that voters in their respective constituencies were corruptly influenced in their voting by conducts or acts of the eventual winners who were giving out handouts, distributing their party materials as well as campaigning on the polling day.
They also claimed that the winners were seen on several occasions conducting secret meetings with presiding officers.
The petitioners said they filed complaints with MEC but were surprised when the electoral body declared their opponents as winners despite the outcome being affected by serious irregularities.
In his ruling, Kenyatta noted that it is not all decisions of MEC that can be challenged under section 114(1) of the of the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act.
He said the only appeals that can be entertained are those that challenge “a decision of the Commission confirming or rejecting the existence of an irregularity”.
According to the Judge, the provisions of section 114 of the Act come into play after a complaint, submitted under section 113 of the Act, alleging irregularity, has been examined and decided on by the Commission.
Kenyatta added that the complaint only go to the High Court by way of appeal.
He said: “In the present case, I have read and re-read the Petition and the exhibits attached thereto in search of ‘a decision of the Commission confirming or rejecting the existence of an irregularity’ but my search has been in vain. In the premises, the petition is wholly misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.”
