The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed with costs an application by the Democratic Progressive Party’s Kondwani Nankhumwa and two other party rebels who were appealing their removal from their respective positions.
Justice Dorothy Kamanga said Nankhumwa, Grezelder Jeffrey and Cecilia Chazama did not follow legal procedures.
She accused the three party rebels of going to the upper court without provisions of appeal.
She said the three sought an immediate relief from the Supreme Court without first appealing the High Court’s ruling at the same court.
Kamanga also said intra party conflicts should be resolved using existing party structures before taking them to court.
The three were against DPP president’s Peter Mutharika’s decision to remove them from their positions.
This means the three face the DPP disciplinary committee on Friday (today) where they are likely to be expelled from the party.
Last week, High Court Judge Howard Pemba dismissed the application of the claimants.
The three who are being represented by Calcius Chidothe were also asking the court about the eligibility of the National Governing Council meeting which was called by Mutharika.
The applicants told the court they were yet to be served with letters indicating reasons behind their removal in different positions.
The three, were asking for a quick injunction to stop them from appearing before the party’s disciplinary committee, as the party have already summoned them.
The applicants believed the lower court over looked the matter when granting its judgement.
In response, Mutharika and DPP lawyer Charles Mhango told the court that appeal grounds by the claimants are baseless as the lower court judgement clearly indicates that there are no issues in the case.
The defendants told the court that the party followed its constitution when switching the positions of the three.
The respondents have asked the court to avoid giving the applicants a short relieve, to stop them from appearing before the disciplinary committee tomorrow as the court will set a precedence where many politicians will use the court to stop them from following political parties constitution.
The respondents also disclosed that the party has a legal avenue where members can seek clarity on legal issues other than continuing using the courts.