The Principal Magistrate’s Court in Mzuzu on Wednesday started afresh hearing a case in which 21 Mzimba tobacco farmers are seeking compensation for financial losses.
The losses are said to have been incurred after using alleged hazardous fertiliser supplied by Smallholder Farmers Fertiliser Revolving Fund of Malawi (SFFRFM).
be quantified as of now. I Nation
The farmers, who lodged the complaint in 2020, are from Mbawa and Vibangalala extension planning areas and are being led by Thomas Msiska as the main plaintiff.
The said hazardous fertiliser was procured from one of the defendants in the case, Blue Deebaj FZCO, a company based in the United Arab Emirates.
When the matter came before court, principal magistrate Clemence Chamwenda decided that the case should be reheard.
The decision followed a request by Blue Deebaj FZCO to rehear the matter after the company was added to the case.
But when Msiska was paraded as first witness, defence lawyers for SFFRFM and Blue Deebaj FZCO Fiskani Nkhoma and Pawene Nkhata, respectively, raised objections on authenticity of the evidence.
This, according to the lawyers, included the absence of details such as date, place and author of documents such as receipts, photos and letters filed as evidence by lawyers for the claimant.
Chamwenda then ordered the two parties to file submissions on the contested issues within seven days before adjourning the matter to a date to be announced.
In an interview after the adjournment, lawyer for the farmers, Christopher Kambalame of Jivason and Company said they will parade two witnesses.
He revealed that each of the farmers is demanding compensation, ranging between K15 million and K50 million.
“The said damages cannot be quantified as of now. If the plaintiffs are successful, then the court will have to set the matter for assessment to quantify the damages,” he said.
In a separate interview, Nkhoma of Wilson and Morgan said a separate group of farmers was already compensated outside court.
But he revealed that SFFRFM failed to reach an agreement with the claimants despite several proposals made by his client “out of goodwill”.
“I am saying out of goodwill because SFFRFM did not manufacture the fertiliser and my client believes that the proper defendant should be the manufacturer.
“SFFRFM was just helping the farmers since it deals with farmers and understands their plight in Malawi. It wanted to have them covered,” he said.
On his part, Nkhata said his client has been supplying fertiliser in Malawi for over 10 years and has never had any issues.
He said: “Before it was supplied to Malawi, this fertiliser in question was certified by the Malawi Bureau of Standards as good fertiliser to use.
“We are waiting for the claimants to present their evidence and see what was wrong with the fertiliser.”
