Supreme Court Nullifies “Suzyo Nyika” Case

Não é difícil assumir que jogar por dinheiro é realmente lucrativo. Para apostar de verdade, você precisa criar uma página pessoal. O registro no site oficial Pin Up pinup-entrar.com envolve o preenchimento de um pequeno formulário e não leva muito tempo. Você só tem que realizar 2 ações.
By Dickson Jere
Suzyo Nyika – a renowned businessman – died in a mysterious circumstances at his home village of Lundazi. He was buried right there before rumors started circulating that he was in fact alive and living in neighboring country.
Immediately after burial, the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) moved in and seized his assets on the grounds that they were proceeds of crime. They also demanded to exhume the body, which they did – to make sure that indeed it was him that was buried and DNA tests conducted.
This action traumatized the wife, who was now appointed Administrator of his Estate. She was also called for questioning over the wealthy of the late husband. This prompted her to seek legal redress under the Constitution and filed a Petition in the High Court.
To be precisely, she filed a Petition under the Principal Registry as a “Constitutional” matter in which she wanted a declaration that the harassment and seizing of property was unconstitutional.
Unknown to her, the case was transferred to the newly established Economic and Financial Crimes Court and given a new Cause Number.
Her lawyers protested but the High Court – three Judges – proceeded to hear and determine the matter.
Dissatisfied, the widow appealed to the Supreme Court, protesting that the three Judges had no right to hear the case under the Economic and Financial Crime Court when she filed a constitutional matter.
“While no judge is precluded from hearing and determining a petition, be they from Economic and Financial Crimes Division or any other Division, the character of the petition must be preserved,” the Judges said.
“It is as a result undesirable to change the issuing registry,” the Court said, adding that the transfer in this case irregular and against the law.
The Supreme Court ordered that the matter be assigned to another Judge in the High Court and not any of the three that had heard the case.
“We therefore quash the judgement of the High Court, and set aside the proceedings. The matter is remitted to the High Court,” the Judges said.
“The implication of the irregularity was that the High Court that heard the petition had no jurisdiction to heat it. The proceedings were a nullity. Nothing came out of them,” they added.
Case citation – Thelma Munga v Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) – Appeal No. 5 of 2024 and Judgement delivered today, 17th April, 2025.
Lecture Notes;
The Supreme Court has guided that matters filed under the Constitution (Bill of Rights) must be preserved and determined as such without changing them. Any High Court Judge can then hear the matter.

source