Court Vindicates Mulli After 14-Year Battle, Declares Govt Blacklisting Malicious and Illegal

The High Court of Malawi has delivered a landmark ruling in favour of businessman Leston Mulli and his companies, declaring the government's 2012 blacklisting directive as unlawful, malicious, and without legal basis. After a 14-year legal battle, Justice Allan Hans Muhome found that the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Ralph Kasambara SC, acted without legal authority and in bad faith when he issued the directive, which barred Mulli's firms from engaging in public contracts. The court emphasised a critical breach of due process, as the affected companies were denied an opportunity to be heard. This decision underscores the importance of administrative fairness and accountability in the exercise of public power, setting a significant precedent for judicial review of executive actions in Malawi and opening the door for substantial compensation claims.

In a pivotal judgment delivered on June 22, 2026, the High Court of Malawi has brought a definitive end to a 14-year legal saga, vindicating prominent businessman Leston Mulli and his associated companies against a government blacklisting directive issued in 2012. The ruling, handed down by Justice Allan Hans Muhome, unequivocally declared the government's action as unlawful, malicious, and lacking any legal foundation. This decision is not merely a personal triumph for Mulli but represents a profound affirmation of the rule of law and administrative justice within Malawi's governance framework.

The High Court's pronouncements carry significant weight for legal practitioners, particularly those engaged in administrative law, public procurement, and commercial litigation involving the State. By dissecting the arbitrary exercise of executive power and highlighting the imperative of due process, the judgment serves as a critical reminder of the constitutional safeguards against governmental overreach. This article will delve into the background of the blacklisting, analyse the court's reasoning, and explore the broader implications for administrative accountability and the protection of private interests in Malawi.

The genesis of this protracted legal dispute dates back to September 5, 2012, when the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ralph Kasambara SC, issued a directive blacklisting Leston Mulli and five of his companies from doing business with government ministries, departments, and agencies. This directive effectively shut Mulli's businesses, including Mulli Brothers Limited, Sunrise Pharmaceuticals, Celcom Limited, National Bus Company of Malawi, and Chombe Foods Limited, out of public contracts overnight. The government's action was reportedly based on allegations of money laundering, corruption, and tax evasion, though these accusations were never formally pursued through criminal prosecution.

Malawi's legal framework, particularly its 1994 Constitution, enshrines fundamental principles of administrative justice. Section 43 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to lawful and procedurally fair administrative action, which is justifiable in relation to reasons given where their rights, freedoms, legitimate expectations, or interests are affected or threatened. Furthermore, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act (Cap. 40:03 of the Laws of Malawi) and its accompanying Regulations outline specific procedures for debarment of suppliers, typically requiring reasonable notice and an opportunity for the affected party to be heard before such a drastic measure is imposed. These statutory and constitutional provisions form the bedrock against which the legality and fairness of government administrative actions are assessed through judicial review.

Justice Allan Hans Muhome's judgment meticulously dismantled the government's 2012 blacklisting directive on several critical grounds. Central to the court's finding was the determination that the directive was issued without any legal authority. Justice Muhome found that Ralph Kasambara SC, in his dual capacity as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, acted beyond his powers, effectively engaging in an abuse of public office. The court explicitly stated that the action was taken in bad faith, driven by targeted malice, and was reckless, noting the absence of any credible justification for singling out Mulli's companies while other government contractors remained untouched.

A cornerstone of administrative law, the principle of *audi alteram partem* (hear the other side), was found to have been flagrantly violated. The High Court emphasised that Mulli and his companies were never afforded an opportunity to be heard before the blacklisting directive was imposed, constituting a clear breach of due process and basic principles of fairness. This procedural impropriety, coupled with the lack of substantive legal basis and the finding of malice, rendered the government's action unlawful. The judgment reinforces the constitutional right to fair administrative action, as articulated in the Constitution of Malawi, and the necessity for public officers to act within the confines of their statutory powers and established legal procedures.

The ruling also touched upon the concept of misfeasance in public office, a tort where a public officer abuses their power or acts with malice or reckless disregard for the consequences. The court's conclusion that the Attorney General acted with specific intent to injure the claimants, without legal authority and without hearing them, aligns squarely with the elements of this tort. This aspect of the judgment is particularly significant as it holds public officials personally accountable for egregious abuses of power, moving beyond mere procedural irregularities to address the underlying intent behind administrative actions. The court has since ordered an assessment of damages, with Mulli's companies seeking a substantial K270 billion in compensation for the losses incurred during the three years the ban was in effect before its revocation in 2014.

This case stands in contrast to the formal debarment procedures outlined in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, which mandate due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, before a supplier can be excluded from public procurement. The court's decision highlights the dangers of executive directives bypassing established legal frameworks and the vital role of judicial review in upholding constitutionalism and ensuring accountability in public administration. While Mulli has had other legal battles with the State, including a recent Supreme Court order for him to return K3 billion in compensation from a separate matter, this particular High Court ruling firmly establishes the illegality of the 2012 blacklisting.

The High Court's vindication of Leston Mulli after a 14-year battle marks a significant moment for administrative law in Malawi. It sends an unequivocal message that public power, even when exercised by high-ranking officials like the Attorney General, is not absolute and must be wielded within the bounds of the law, fairness, and due process. For legal practitioners, this judgment reinforces the critical importance of challenging arbitrary administrative decisions and underscores the robust protections afforded by the Malawian Constitution and principles of judicial review.

Practitioners should advise clients engaging with the State to be acutely aware of their rights to fair administrative action and to seek immediate legal counsel if faced with unsubstantiated or procedurally flawed government directives. The potential for substantial damages awarded in this case, currently set for assessment, also highlights the significant financial liabilities that can arise from unlawful executive actions. This ruling is likely to encourage greater scrutiny of government procurement and blacklisting processes, fostering a more transparent and accountable administrative environment in Malawi. All eyes will now be on the damages assessment and any potential appeals, which will further shape the landscape of administrative justice in the country.