This
site is designed for Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator versions
4 and above and a screen resolution of at least 800x600
|
|
|
Aford appeals against verdict
By
Gedion Munthali - 04-06-2003 |
|
|
Aford has appealed against the High Court ruling that threw out its bid to prevent members of a splinter pressure group from calling themselves Genuine Aford (Gaford) or using slogans, emblems, logos or signs of the party.
Justice Jane Ansah decided last week the name Gaford does not resemble that of Aford as to cause any confusion among members of the two political organisations and that the party did not prove the pressure group was using its symbols.
Aford lawyer Kalekeni Kaphale filed notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Blantyre on Monday, which he served on Gaford lawyer Charles Mhango the same day.
He says the judge “erred in finding it as fact that the name Genuine Aford whose acronym Gaford did not so closely resemble the appellants’ name Aford as to cause confusion to the appellants members, donors, well-wishers and potential voters”
Kaphale says the judge also erred in finding it as a fact that there was no confusion of voters in the case of MNDP and MDP political parties and in relying on the names of the said political parties as examples.
Ansah observed that the registrar of political parties registered the Malawi Democratic Party (MDP) and Malawi National Democratic Party (MNDP), with the word “national” bringing the difference. She added that the two parties participated in previous elections without any record of confusion.
Kaphale points out that the “learned judge erred in requiring the appellant to prove or show actual damage or loss as a condition precedent to granting an injunction and in finding that no damage or loss at all would accrue to the appellant by reason of the respondents actions”.
In her ruling, Ansah also said the pressure group was not named Gaford for malicious intentions like some three individuals who earlier this year registered their party as National Democratic Alliance (NDA) when a pressure group with that name already existed.
But Kaphale says the learned judge erred in finding that there was no misrepresentation emanating from the respondents’ actions.
Ansah said that there was “no serious question” to decide for which an injunction could be granted to Aford. Kaphale says this finding was made in error, adding that “the learned judge’s decision is against the weight of evidence and materials before her”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
