High Court Returns Vendors to Wakawaka Market

The High Court in Lilongwe has granted an interlocutory injunction to vendors of the Wakawaka Market, effectively halting attempts by the Lilongwe City Council (LCC) and the Ministry of Local Government to forcibly relocate them. The ruling allows hundreds of traders to continue operating at the site while a substantive legal challenge, seeking judicial review of the market's closure and relocation directive, proceeds. This decision is a significant setback for the LCC's urban planning efforts, which cited expired licenses, illegal operations, congestion, and sanitation issues as reasons for the closure and demolition. The court's intervention underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing administrative actions and protecting the livelihoods of informal sector traders in Malawi.

In a pivotal development for urban informal traders in Malawi, the Lilongwe High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, granting an interlocutory injunction that effectively returns vendors to the controversial Wakawaka Market. This judicial intervention has temporarily halted the Lilongwe City Council's (LCC) and the Ministry of Local Government's efforts to compel hundreds of traders to relocate to alternative sites, following the market's closure and partial demolition. The decision allows vendors to resume operations at their long-established trading hub, pending a full judicial review of the authorities' actions.

The ruling marks a crucial moment in the ongoing tension between municipal urban development initiatives and the socio-economic realities of informal sector workers. It highlights the judiciary's increasing willingness to scrutinize administrative decisions that profoundly impact citizens' livelihoods. This article will explore the legal and constitutional underpinnings of this decision, examining the interplay between local government powers, constitutional rights, and the principles of administrative justice in Malawi. The central thesis is that the court's emphasis on procedural fairness and the protection of socio-economic rights, particularly the right to livelihood, serves as a vital check on potentially arbitrary administrative actions affecting vulnerable populations.

The legal framework governing local government operations in Malawi is primarily enshrined in the Local Government Act of 1998 (Cap 22:01), which empowers local authorities, including the Lilongwe City Council, to establish, manage, and regulate public markets. Complementing this Act are specific by-laws, such as the Local Government (Lilongwe City Council) (Market and Vending) By-Laws, 2018, and the (Peddlers) By-Laws, 2018, which detail regulations concerning market fees, licensing, and permissible vending activities. Notably, Clause 11(1) and (2) of the Second Schedule to the Local Government Act mandates local authorities to establish markets and prohibits individuals from operating private markets without a council-granted license.

Against this backdrop, the Lilongwe City Council had ordered the closure of Wakawaka Market, also known as Solomon Market, citing several justifications. These included the expiry of business licenses, the market's alleged illegal operation on private land and within a road reserve designated for the expansion of the M1 Road, and concerns over congestion, poor hygiene, and non-compliance with planning regulations. In May 2026, the LCC proceeded with demolitions after issuing vacation notices, directing vendors to relocate to designated markets in Area 24 and along the New Bypass Road. However, many vendors vehemently resisted the relocation, arguing that the alternative sites lacked adequate customer traffic, were unsuitable for business, and would severely diminish their earnings, thereby threatening their livelihoods. This resistance escalated into a legal challenge, invoking constitutional protections, particularly Section 29 of the Constitution of Malawi, which guarantees every person the right to freely engage in economic activity, to work, and to pursue a livelihood anywhere in Malawi. Furthermore, Section 43 of the Constitution ensures the right to lawful and procedurally fair administrative action, a cornerstone of administrative justice in the country.

The High Court's decision to grant an interlocutory injunction in the case of *Ronnie Kamkuzi Maseko and Muloreni Mangolomera v Lilongwe City Council and Secretary for Local Government* is a critical application of administrative law principles in Malawi. Justice Kenyatta Nyirenda, in delivering the ruling, emphasized that the injunction was necessary to "preserve the case" and prevent the ongoing judicial review proceedings from being rendered nugatory if the council were allowed to proceed with the market's closure and relocation. This highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that administrative actions are subjected to proper legal scrutiny before irreversible steps are taken.

The vendors' legal challenge is predicated on the assertion that the LCC's decisions were "illegal, unconstitutional, procedurally improper and unreasonable." These grounds align squarely with the established principles for judicial review of administrative action in Malawi. As articulated in cases like *The State v The Registrar General, Ex-Parte Msenga Mulungu & 8 Others*, a public authority's decision may be quashed if it acts without or exceeds jurisdiction, fails to comply with natural justice, contains an error of law, or is unreasonable. The court's function in judicial review is not to delve into the merits of the administrative decision itself, but rather to assess the legality and fairness of the decision-making process.

The conflict in this case illustrates the inherent tension between a local authority's statutory mandate for urban planning and regulation, as provided by the Local Government Act and its by-laws, and the constitutional rights of citizens, particularly the right to livelihood. While the LCC cited legitimate concerns such as road expansion, congestion, and sanitation, the vendors countered with arguments of inadequate consultation, the unsuitability of proposed relocation sites, and the devastating impact on their established economic activities. The fact that Wakawaka Market was reportedly on private land, with vendors allegedly paying fees directly to the landowner rather than the council, further complicates the regulatory landscape and raises questions about the LCC's oversight and revenue collection mechanisms.

Malawi's Constitution, under Section 11(c), permits courts to consider comparable foreign case law when interpreting its provisions, with particular deference often given to South African jurisprudence, especially regarding Section 33 of the South African Constitution on administrative action. This comparative approach could prove instrumental in further defining the scope of "procedurally fair administrative action" and the extent to which local authorities must engage with affected communities before implementing decisions that impact their fundamental rights. The court's current stance suggests a robust application of these principles, ensuring that administrative power is exercised within legal bounds and with due regard for affected parties.

The High Court's interlocutory injunction in the Wakawaka Market dispute serves as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners and local authorities alike of the stringent requirements for lawful and procedurally fair administrative action in Malawi. For practitioners advising local councils, this case underscores the imperative of strict adherence to administrative law principles, including comprehensive public consultation, transparent decision-making processes, and a thorough assessment of the socio-economic impacts of proposed actions. Failure to do so risks judicial intervention, costly delays, and reputational damage. Conversely, for legal professionals representing informal traders, the ruling demonstrates the efficacy of judicial review as a powerful mechanism to safeguard constitutional rights, particularly the right to livelihood, against potentially overreaching administrative directives.

The upcoming judicial review of the Lilongwe City Council's decision will be closely watched, as its outcome could establish a significant precedent for how urban planning and market management are conducted across Malawi. It highlights the need for a more balanced and consultative approach to urban development that integrates the needs and rights of informal sector participants. Moving forward, there is a clear call for the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development to develop clearer policy guidelines or legislative reforms that reconcile urban development goals with the protection of vulnerable livelihoods, ensuring that future relocation efforts are both lawful and equitable.