Court throws out Chihana’s challenge against Blantyre Water Board suspension
The High Court in Blantyre has discharged an order that had temporarily stopped the suspension of former Yeremia Chihana as Chief Executive Officer of Blantyre Water Board, ruling that the matter is primarily an employment dispute that the Industrial Relations Court should handle.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Allan Hans Muhome stated that the case raised issues rooted in the employer-employee relationship and was not a matter suitable for judicial review before the High Court.
Chihana had accepted the position of CEO on April 8, 2026, before being suspended by the board 19 days later pending investigations into several allegations. Among them were claims that he made public announcements without board approval, including promises to provide free water and chlorine to cholera-affected communities and to write off debts owed by water kiosk operators.
The board also accused him of allowing an unauthorized person to use his official vehicle and access board premises and documents, as well as allegedly causing the arrest of some directors contrary to a board resolution.
Earlier, the court had granted Chihana leave to seek judicial review and also stayed the suspension without first hearing the water board. However, the board later applied to have the permission and stay discharged.
In his ruling, Justice Muhome agreed with arguments by the board’s lawyers that the dispute was dominated by employment issues and therefore belonged before the Industrial Relations Court.
The judge cited previous decisions, including Nathan Mpinganjira v The State & Malawi Development Corporation and a recent case involving Kamkwamba Kumwenda and Chrispin Banda, which established that employment grievances should generally be handled by specialized labour courts.
Justice Muhome said while some decisions by statutory bodies can be reviewed by courts when they involve public law issues, the dominant factor in Chihana’s case was contractual employment rights.
“The Claimant herein has an alternative and effective remedy in the Industrial Relations Court,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently discharged both the permission for judicial review and the stay order, with each party ordered to bear its own legal costs.
