LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-The High Court Judge Kenyatta Nyirenda has emphatically dismissed Luthando Holdings Limited, Hedrix Laner’s application against Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s March 2024 decision to discharge criminals’ changes on Paramount Holdings Limited and its directors.

Luthando Holdings owner Hedrix Laner sought high court review against DPP decision to discharge Paramount Holdings and Directors on case number 37 of 2025.

The Malawi Law Society (MLS) joined the case as Amicus Curia Corum while Luthando Limited and Laner and DPP are claimants and defendant respectively.

Despite a number of applications in the courts pursued privately, Judge Nyirenda is still amused with Luthando’s defiance on the matter.

Judge Nyirenda initial observation in the ruling, “Based on the wording of the Certificate of Discontinuance and the Order of Discontinuance, the challenged decision was effectively made on 3rd April 2024. There is nothing ongoing about the challenged decision. According to Order 19, rule 23(3), of the CPR, the Claimants had up to 4th July 2024 to commence judicial review proceedings challenging the Defendant’s decision to discontinue the case against the accused persons”.

In the 18 page ruling, Judge Nyirenda observes that, “I am completely baffled by the desperate attempt being made by the Claimants to muddy the waters by asserting that the court process in the Magistrate’s Court for discharge of the accused persons was on going.

“What the Claimants seek to be judicially reviewed is not the court process but the decision by the Defendant to discharge the Claimants: see paragraph 3 of this Ruling. By its very nature, a decision to discharge the Claimants cannot be ongoing. The material part of the Certificate of Discontnuance states as follows: “IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED in exercise of the powers conferred by section 77 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code that the State enters discontinuance of the aforementioned charges against the named accused persons”.

Reads the ruling in part. “It is not uninteresting to note that the Claimants have not addressed the point made by the Defendant that the law does not allow the Republic to recommence a matter outside the stipulated time limits. That the Claimants have not done so does not come to me with a sense of surprise. The arguments advanced by the Defendant are so formidable that they cannot be assailed. The Court has no option but to fully endorse the submissions set out in paragraphs 3.21 to 3.28 of the Defendant’s .

“It is commonplace that the application for judicial review was filed with this Court on 17th June 2025. This means that the Claimants delayed by more than eleven months. Needless to say, the Claimants made no application that they be allowed to bring these proceedings outside the period of three months prescribed by Order 19, rule 20(5), of the CPR. In the same vein, and perhaps more importantly, no reasons have been given for the inordinate delay in commencing the present proceedings. In view of the foregoing, I fully agree with the submissions by the Defendant that the application by the Claimants for judicial review of the challenged decision is time barred and this constitutes a valid ground for discharging the permission that was granted herein”.

Nyirenda adds, “Whether or not the remedies being sought by the Claimants are moot? It is the case of the Defendant that the remedies being sought by the Claimants are moot and thus the proceedings are an exercise in futility. Paragraphs 3.21 to 3.28 of the Defendant’s Skeleton Arguments are relevant and they will be reproduced. It is also to be noted that the submissions of both the Claimants and the Amicus Curiae proceed on the assumption that the Supreme Court of Appeal only has appellant jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction. With due respect, the assumption lacks merit.

“The Supreme Court of Appeal is a creature of section 104 of the Constitution which provides, in subsection (1), among other things, that the Supreme Court of Appeal shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by “any other law”. Order 1, rule 18, of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules falls within the category of “any other law” envisaged by section 104 of the Constitution: see also Order II of the Supreme Court of Appeal Rules which makes provision for the procedure to be followed by the Supreme Court of Appeal when exercising its original jurisdiction”.

Judge Kenyatta rules with costs, “The long and short of it is that the accused persons were acquitted and cannot be tried again over the same case or facts. The law is the law: see the case of The State (On application of Lin Xiaoxiao & Others) v. The Director General –Immigration and Citizenship Services and the Attorney General, HC/LDR Judicial Review Cause No. 19 of 2020. In this regard, the remedies being sought by the Claimants are moot and the proceedings are clearly an exercise in futility.

“All in all, the application has failed the litmus test on two grounds, that is, the application is time-barred and the proceedings are an exercise in futility. Accordingly, the Application to Discharge Permission is granted. The general rule is that costs follow the event. An instructive authority is Order 31, rule 3(2), of the CPR. Having succeeded in his application, the Defendant must be awarded costs of this action. I so order Pronounced in Chambers this 17th day of October 2025 at Lilongwe in the Republic of Malawi”.

Meanwhile, embattled Luthando Holdings Limited Director Laner has appealed against the ruling in the Supreme Court against the ruling.

In a landmark ruling delivered on Friday, June 27, 2025, the court cleared Paramount Holdings directors—Prakash Virji Ghedia, Arvindkumar Atit Patel, and Suresh Khimji Jagatiya—alongside the company, of three criminal charges, including conspiracy to commit a felony and the alleged use of false documents to obtain a government tender.

Significantly, the court issued an order prohibiting the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from pursuing any further charges related to the matter against the individuals or the company.

“The accused persons are hereby acquitted from criminal charges,” reads the court’s ruling in Criminal Case No. 868 of 2023. “The court hereby bars the state from bringing any charges against the accused persons on the same grounds.”

The charges, initially filed in July 2021, were based on a complaint by Hendrix Laher, director of Luthando Holdings Limited—a business competitor. Laher alleged that Paramount Holdings had submitted a forged Yamaha dealership certificate to win a motorcycle supply tender issued by JHPIEGO, an international health NGO.

Court documents reveal that both Paramount and Luthando Holdings had submitted bids to supply Yamaha motorcycles to several entities, including the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Local Government, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, and JHPIEGO.

The tender was awarded to Paramount Holdings on July 7, 2020. Laher subsequently lodged a complaint with the Fiscal and Fraud Section of the Malawi Police Service.

However, the case unraveled when the complainant failed to appear in court on at least three occasions.

This lack of cooperation, coupled with an absence of credible evidence, led the Office of the DPP—first under Dr. Steven Kayuni, then under Masauko Edwin Chamkakala—to discontinue the matter.

A formal certificate of discontinuance was issued on March 19, 2024, under Section 77 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code.

After the statutory six-month period passed, the court officially acquitted the accused and barred the state from reopening the case.

The ruling provides Paramount Holdings and its directors with full legal vindication, enabling them to continue participating in public and donor-funded tenders without restriction or blemish on their record.

In 2022, Yamaha Motor Corporation Japan formally appointed Paramount Holdings as the sole authorized distributor of Yamaha motorcycles and related products in Malawi.

The company has reportedly advertised Yamaha-branded products across Malawi—despite lacking any formal authorization from Yamaha Japan.

However, legal experts have criticized these actions as misleading and potentially fraudulent.

In a related civil case, Luthando Holdings and other companies are challenging Yamaha Japan’s exclusive dealership agreement with Paramount Holdings.

These firms are alleged to have bid for government tenders using documentation from Yamaha agents based in South Africa—raising questions about the legitimacy of such practices under Malawi’s procurement laws.

The Maravi Post