Frustrated by an 18-month wait for a court ruling, three former Escom meter readers have made a plea to the Chief Justice (CJ), fearing their long-won compensation is being eroded by delays to pay them.
In a letter dated September 26 2024, John Mtitima, Albert Mchepa and Amos Kuchangale appealed directly to Chief Justice Rizine Mzikamanda to intervene in their 16-year legal battle, arguing that justice itself is stalling.
“We are surprised with the inordinate and incomprehensible delay in getting the ruling over our application herein. We feel this delay has gone beyond justice,” Mtitima wrote on behalf of the group.
The matter originates from 2009, when Mtitima and 22 others sued the Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi (Escom) at the Industrial Relations Court (IRC) for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practices. The IRC initially dismissed their case in 2010, ruling that they were not employees, but commission agents.
However, the High Court, on appeal by the workers, overturned that decision. In a judgement on August 21 2014, Justice Fiona Mwale ruled that the men were, in fact, Escom employees, and that their dismissal was unfair.
Justice Mwale rejected Escom’s attempt to deny them employee benefits, saying: “The respondent, an established limited liability company of substantial repute, cannot therefore rely on the informality of the relationship to the detriment of the appellants who are entitled to legal protection under the Constitution and the Employment Act.”
The judge ordered the Registrar to assess the damages due to them.
After a series of assessments and a rehearing, the High Court’s senior deputy Registrar Justice Justus Kishindo, on May 4 2018, awarded the three K76 629 853.90 in damages for unfair dismissal, severance allowance, pension and medical allowance, plus costs.
Court records reveal a gap between what was awarded and what was paid. An initial assessment of damages in late 2016 totalled K77 173 214.40. In 2017, Escom obtained a stay of execution on condition it paid the judgement sum into court.
The parties later consented to the release of K12 033 261, described as money “not in dispute” for salary and severance. However, this left the vast majority of the final K76.6 million award unpaid, a fact the claimants discovered later.
Escom, dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal on November 23 2018.
The former employees then applied to have Escom’s appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. That application was heard by Justice of Appeal Healey Potani on April 7 2023. To date, over a year later, the ruling on that application has not been delivered.
The letter to the CJ reads further: “Even if the judgement of our application to dismiss Escom appeal for want of prosecution is successful today, will the money blocked have any value to us since the value of the money now cannot be compared to its value of 2018? What about the delay in releasing the judgement, will it not compound the value of our earnings?”
Court documents indicate that Escom initially handled the appeal through its in-house legal counsel before formally engaging the private firm, Kalekeni Kaphale.
In an interview this week, Kaphale said it was unfair to ask him to comment on the 18-month delay in Justice Potani’s ruling, saying the matter was being dealt with by the judiciary.
Asked on the assertion that the prolonged litigation constituted a tactical delay, Kaphale countered.
“Our client gains nothing by delaying the case as courts boost awards where reliefs have delayed. Our client is in a quest for a just ending to the litigation.”
Recent correspondence between lawyers indicates the case remains stuck.
In a letter dated April 4 2025, Si lungwe Law Consultant s , representing Mtitima and others, wrote to Kaphale’s firm, noting that Justice Potani had directed the appeal record be settled by February 24 2025, but “there seems to have been no movement since then”.
They proposed an out-of-court settlement to “avoid this costly litigation”.
In a response dated October 8 2025, Kaphale lawyers said their client had advised them to proceed with the case and proposed settling the record of appeal by consent.
The Supreme Court appeal itself has yet to be heard, pending the undelivered ruling on its dismissal and the compilation of the formal record.
Judiciary spokesperson Ruth Mputeni was yet to respond to our questionnaire on the delay in Justice Potani’s ruling.
