The High Court of Malawi has faulted the Malawi Government for unlawfully denying four local firms fertiliser supply contracts under the 2020/21 Affordable Inputs Programme (AIP) and has ordered that they be compensated for losses.
The four companies are Mulli Brothers Limited, Web Commercials Limited, Rock Ba Rock and FF Trading who sued the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) Review Committee and the Attorney General alongside State-owned Smallholder Farmers Fertiliser Revolving Fund of Malawi (SFFRFM) as an interested party.
The fourth company challenged government’s failure to award them contracts for the supply of fertiliser under the 2020/21 AIP, now Farm Inputs Subsidy Program (Fisp).
Delivering the ruling in Lilongwe on August 27 2026, Judge Simeon Mdeza said it was the court’s finding that the four companies were unlawfully denied contracts to supply fertiliser.
He ordered the government to compensate the companies for losses arising from the failure to proceed with the contracts, including loss of business, profit or revenue.
Mdeza said the companies’ bids were evaluated by the procuring and disposing entity, which recommended that they be awarded contracts to supply and deliver the fertiliser.
Said the judge: “The claimants are entitled to damages for loss of business or profit or revenue and the same should be assessed by the Registrar if not mutually agreed upon by the parties.
“In light of these findings, the court is persuaded that the impugned determination was ultra vires, irrational, procedurally unfair, or otherwise unlawful. The claimants have discharged the burden of demonstrating that the defendant failed to act within its statutory powers. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is successful.”
Court documents show that the companies participated in the 2020/21 fertiliser procurement process and were recommended for the contracts.
In their submissions, the companies quoted the Secretary for Agriculture as having stated that the Reserve Bank of Malawi indicated that the companies had outstanding loans with government, as such, could not be awarded the contracts.
