Nearly two months on, human rights activist and lawyer Alexious Kamangila is still waiting for the High Court to give him his day in court.
Kamangila says he has been waiting for the High Court to give him a date to have his application heard in a defamation case brought against him by High Court Judge Kenan Manda.
Kamangila, an access to justice researcher at the University of Galway and a prominent critic of alleged corruption within Malawi’s justice system, is the defendant in Civil Case Number 141 of 2024, in which Manda is seeking damages over statements and Facebook posts made by Kamangila.
The dispute followed Kamangila’s public allegations concerning Manda’s conduct in the Commercial Cause involving Mukeshwar Sugar Mills Limited and Salima Sugar Company Limited.
The allegations generated significant public debate, with the Malawi Law Society in 2024 calling for alleged misconduct involving Manda to be investigated by the Judicial Service Commission.
Manda subsequently pursued a defamation case against Kamangila. In May 2026, the High Court struck out Kamangila’s statement of defence after an application by Manda and entered judgment on liability, according to correspondence and media reports on the case.
Kamangila then filed an application on 13 July 2026 seeking to set aside the order that removed his defence.
But almost two months later, he says he is still waiting for a hearing date.
In his latest letter dated 11 September 2026 to High Court Judge Howard Pemba, Kamangila says the delay has denied him an opportunity to be heard on his application.
“It is 2 months since the filing of the necessary processes, and not only has the Court failed to give me the opportunity to be heard, the Court has not even given a date for hearing of this application,” Kamangila says.
The latest letter follows a series of exchanges between Kamangila and the court over the handling of the case.
In a response dated 10 August 2026, Assistant Registrar Benjamin Chulu explained that Kamangila’s application was inter partes, unlike Manda’s earlier ex parte application, meaning that a hearing date had to be arranged for both parties and the court.
Chulu said the court’s schedule had been too tight to provide an earlier date and noted that other applications filed during the same period were also waiting to be heard.
The court assured Kamangila that his application would be dealt with fairly and justly.
Kamangila, however, has continued to press for a hearing date, arguing that the matter should ultimately be determined on its merits.
His latest demand therefore puts the spotlight not only on the defamation dispute between a judge and a lawyer, but also on a basic question of access to justice: how long should a defendant wait before getting an opportunity to have an application heard?
For Kamangila, who has made judicial accountability a central part of his public advocacy, the wait has now become another point of contention in a case that began with his public criticism of a sitting judge.
The High Court has yet to indicate, in the correspondence provided, a date for hearing Kamangila’s application.
Kamangila says he has been waiting for the High Court to give him a date to have his application heard in a defamation case brought against him by High Court Judge Kenan Manda.
Kamangila, an access to justice researcher at the University of Galway and a prominent critic of alleged corruption within Malawi’s justice system, is the defendant in Civil Case Number 141 of 2024, in which Manda is seeking damages over statements and Facebook posts made by Kamangila.
The dispute followed Kamangila’s public allegations concerning Manda’s conduct in the Commercial Cause involving Mukeshwar Sugar Mills Limited and Salima Sugar Company Limited.
The allegations generated significant public debate, with the Malawi Law Society in 2024 calling for alleged misconduct involving Manda to be investigated by the Judicial Service Commission.
Manda subsequently pursued a defamation case against Kamangila. In May 2026, the High Court struck out Kamangila’s statement of defence after an application by Manda and entered judgment on liability, according to correspondence and media reports on the case.
Kamangila then filed an application on 13 July 2026 seeking to set aside the order that removed his defence.
But almost two months later, he says he is still waiting for a hearing date.
In his latest letter dated 11 September 2026 to High Court Judge Howard Pemba, Kamangila says the delay has denied him an opportunity to be heard on his application.
“It is 2 months since the filing of the necessary processes, and not only has the Court failed to give me the opportunity to be heard, the Court has not even given a date for hearing of this application,” Kamangila says.
The latest letter follows a series of exchanges between Kamangila and the court over the handling of the case.
In a response dated 10 August 2026, Assistant Registrar Benjamin Chulu explained that Kamangila’s application was inter partes, unlike Manda’s earlier ex parte application, meaning that a hearing date had to be arranged for both parties and the court.
Chulu said the court’s schedule had been too tight to provide an earlier date and noted that other applications filed during the same period were also waiting to be heard.
The court assured Kamangila that his application would be dealt with fairly and justly.
Kamangila, however, has continued to press for a hearing date, arguing that the matter should ultimately be determined on its merits.
His latest demand therefore puts the spotlight not only on the defamation dispute between a judge and a lawyer, but also on a basic question of access to justice: how long should a defendant wait before getting an opportunity to have an application heard?
For Kamangila, who has made judicial accountability a central part of his public advocacy, the wait has now become another point of contention in a case that began with his public criticism of a sitting judge.
The High Court has yet to indicate, in the correspondence provided, a date for hearing Kamangila’s application.
