The applicant, was a security guard. She was employed on a fixed term renewable contract, renewable upon satisfactory performance. On December 26, 2005, near the end of her employment term, one of the applicant's colleagues attacked her and attempted to rape her, only stopping after being apprehended when she shouted for help. The applicant reported the incident to her employer’s management, which convened a hearing.
The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act defines and prohibits domestic and related gender-based violence, as well as provides for legal remedies and ancillary issues (e.g., financial wellbeing of abused persons). Protection orders can be obtained under the Act by, and not limited to, (a) an abused spouse, (b) a child subjected to domestic violence, and/or (c) a parent who has a child in common with the abuser. Protection orders can require respondents to refrain from further acts of violence as well as bar them from areas frequented by the abused person, including their own homes.
The executive branch of Malawi issued a moratorium to halt the operation of laws that criminalized the sexual practices of same-sex couples. A lower court suspended the moratorium and three separate applicants filed for a continuation of the suspension in the High Court. The Court found that two of the applicants, as clergymen, did not have standing in the case because they were not directly injured by the moratorium.
The two accused persons were charged and convicted of having carnal knowledge against the order of nature –contrary to Section 153(a) of the Penal Code, which is understood to prohibit same-sex sexual relations. In the alternative, the two accused persons were charged with indecent practices between men contrary to Section 156 of the Penal Code. Both of the accused persons pleaded not guilty but were convicted of both charges and sentenced to the maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment including hard labor.
The appellant was convicted by the Third Grade Magistrate Court of two counts of theft and sentenced to six months in prison with hard labor. She appealed her sentence to the High Court and asked the Court to consider a non-custodial sentence instead because she was pregnant and about to give birth. The High Court reduced the appellant’s sentence to time served and admonished the Magistrate Court for sentencing her to imprisonment without considering her status as a first-time offender and a pregnant woman as required by sections 339 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code.
A Fourth Grade Magistrate convicted the appellant and 18 other women for knowingly living on prostitution earnings, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of 24 months in prison. In Malawi, Fourth Grade Magistrates’ jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the maximum sentence is 12 months. This jurisdictional limit was the appellants’ first ground of appeal.
The 33-year-old defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a First Grade Magistrate for defilement after luring a nine-year old girl to his house and raping her. Subsequent medical examinations revealed that the defendant was HIV-positive, as well as injuries and other evidence of the crime on the victim, who did not contract HIV. The State appealed the sentence, arguing that it was insufficient due to the nature of the crime.
The defendant was convicted rape, with the trial court finding that he followed the complainant to her house, suggested sexual intercourse, attacked her when she declined, and raped her. The defendant, a first-time offender, received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment. A judge reviewed the sentence and sent it to the High Court for consideration on the grounds that the sentence necessitated judicial remand due to manifest inadequacy.
Three minor girls, victims of human trafficking who the defendant lured in with promises of working in a restaurant, but instead sent to work at a bar, appealed their case. When the work conditions turned out to be exploitative, the appellants reported the defendant to the police.
The plaintiffs, four members parliament, sought judicial review before the High Court of a decision of the State President to appoint a woman, Mrs. Fiona Kalemba, as the Clerk of Parliament. This occurred against the recommendation of the Parliamentary Service Commission, which had submitted a male candidate who they believed to be the best candidate for the position. The State President wanted three short-listed names for the position, and specified that a woman should be included.
