High Court Judge Ruth Chinangwa has forfeited to Malawi government the Area 43 house belonging to fugitive Paul Mphwiyo.
The ruling follows the State’s application on Mphwiyos bail revocation and forfeiture of bonded properties.
Mphwiyo, who fled the country before the court’s judgement, was answering charges of theft by public servant contrary to Section 278 as read with Section 286(1) of the Penal Code, money laundering contrary to section 35(1)(c) of the Money Laundering, Proceeds of Serious Crime and Terrorist Financing Act and conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 323 of the Penal Code
After been granted bail in 2014, he was ordered to report to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) every fortnight; was bonded by Mk 18,000,000.00 cash and a residential house in area 43.
In her ruling, Chinangwa said she considered whether the house in Area 43 can be forfeited to the Malawi Government noting that the court was seized of the matter after the bail was granted and when trial was at an advanced stage.
“Thus this court needed to get further and better particulars as to whether the house could be forfeited without affecting the rights of third parties being a family residential home,” reads part of ruling, delivered on March 28 2024
She said that facts showed that Mphwiyo was the depositor of the house and he did not present himself at the hearing to show cause why the property should not be forfeited.
“This court is informed by the State that the residential home on an official search is solely registered in the name of the respondent. Being a residential family home this court thought it wise a submission be made to confirm ownership so that the forfeiture would affect the rights of the spouse.
“Section 24(a) of the Registered Land Act states that the registration of a person as the proprietor of private land shall confer on that person the rights of owner of that land as private land. This not being a matrimonial cause of distribution of property the court following the official search of the register owner finds that the house in area 43 belongs to the respondent and is amenable to be forfeited the same having been bonded on the respondents release on bail.
“Further, it is this courts belief that the respondent having been legally represented at the time of his bail application in the year 2014 should have been informed by Counsel of the consequences of absconding bail on the bonded properties.
“Under section 121(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, this court is satisfied that the Respondent has absconded and cannot be traced and hereby orders the house in Area 43 as bonded be forfeited to the Malawi Government,” reads the ruling in part
