The Supreme Court of Appeal judge Dingiswayo Madise has faulted the decision by High Court Judge William Msiska of denying Luthando Holdings Limited permission to move for judicial review on a decision by Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Masauko Chamkakala to discontinue the case involving Paramount Holdings Limited directors.
In April last year, Chamkakala controversially discontinued prosecuting a criminal case against the directors who were answering charges of making and uttering false documents to get government contracts.
The three directors are Prakash Virji Ghedia, Arvindikumar Atiti Patel and Surej Khimji Jagatiya as the first, second and third accused, respectively.
They were being accused of offences surrounding conspiracy to utter false documents and utter a false document showing that the company is an authorized dealer of Yamaha Motorcycles in Malawi.
Following the discontinuous, the directors, through their lawyers TD and Partners, applied for discharge, which Chief Resident Magistrate, Austing Banda, granted despite a challenge from Luthando Holdings Limited.
The application by Luthando Holdings for a judicial review was denied by High Court Judge Msiska.
Following the appeal to the Supreme Court, Madise has ordered that a substantive judicial review application shall be before a different Judge in the general division of the High Court within 60 Days.
“In this matter there are clear triable issues which borders on the exercise of discretion of the DPP and the powers vested in him under section 99 (1) of The Republican Constitution.
“The applicants have made serious allegations against the DPP in exercise of his powers to discontinue a criminal matter. These issues can only be ventilated and investigated in a substantive judicial review application.
“The Judge below erred in refusing to grant permission to the applicants to move for judicial review. In these premises we find that this fresh application before this Court has merits. We therefore grant permission to the applicants to move for judicial review against the decision of the DPP to discontinue the above cited criminal matter,” reads part of the ruling delivered on July 7 2025.
lawyer for Luthando Holdings Limited, Jefferson Luwa, had argued that as the complainant, his client was not aware of the DPP’s actions.
“The DPP is unwilling to prosecute the matter and the complainant learnt about this in court. The complainant is a key party in the proceedings and there cannot be criminal proceedings without the complainant,” he said
Despite the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament recommended that the case be revived, Chamkakala has instead, written a supportive sworn affidavit for Paramount Holdings Limited directors to have the case discontinued, citing the six months that have lapsed.
In his affidavit, Chamkakala said that a period in excess of six months has lapsed since the discharge and “the Republic is not recommencing this matter “Wherefore the Republic prays that the court makes the necessary orders in this regard,”
Read a full detailed analysis of the case HERE
