Recourse to the national Courts of Malawi 21. To vindicate the alleged violation of his rights, the Applicant turned to various courts in Malawi. 22. The Applicant lodged a case in the High Court against the University of Malawi for, amongst others, his reinstatement. 27 November 2003, the High Court found In its judgment dated that the Applicant had not been given a fair hearing to defend himself against the adverse report, and therefore that his dismissal was wrongful. that he could not be reinstated. The Court, however, held It ordered that he be given a further 2 month's payment (the University had on its own already paid him for one month); the order was months’ notice had the Applicant to put him been damages given. in the same Furthermore, for wrongful dismissal, position the High as if a three Court awarded the quantum of which would have to be established before the Registrar of that Court. 23. The University appealed Supreme High against the above judgment to the Malawi Court of Appeal. Court had erred One of the grounds in awarding damages of appeal was that the to the Applicant wrongful dismissal in addition to the three months’ to him. 2004, The held wrongful Supreme that the dismissal, Court High of Appeal, Court over and erred above notice pay awarded in its judgment in awarding the three for the dated the months’ 12 July damages pay award. for It ruled that if the Applicant had “desired to contend that rules of natural justice were employment, not observed by the University when terminating his he was perfectly entitled to have appropriately stated the {10} SE