against the decision of the Industria! Relations Court in the High Court. Although he did appear in the High Court, he declined to argue his case when he was told that he could not do so from a place reserved for licensed practitioners only. This practice is endorsed by the highest court in Malawi and certainly without knowing the reasons and practices behind it, it would otherwise. not be What for our Court is of importance to adjudicate is that there on is no its correctness or indication that by arguing his case from where he was supposed to be, the Applicant would be prejudiced; nor was this his case before our Court. The Applicant should have agreed to argue, and then argued, the merits of his appeal against the judgment of the Industrial Relations Court in the High Court; if not satisfied with the High Court, appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Applicant has, to date, not done either. 39.3. Judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal: As already mentioned, in its judgment of 12 July 2004, that court confirmed the three months’ salary payment, alleged but dismissed the claim for wrongful breach of the rule of natural justice; dismissal the court’s based on the reasons have already been mentioned and quoted above. In its subsequent judgment of 11 October 2007, the court holding that it was faced with the same issue, found the issue to be res judicata, thereby reaffirming its earlier decision, namely, that the Applicant dismissal in the way he did. Supreme could not present his claim for wrongful The correctness of the two judgments of the Court of Appeal depends on whether or not indeed in terms of the national law of procedure, the Applicant was supposed to have stated the issue in the pleadings as a separate cause of action in claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court of Appeal, (22 — being the Né Zo We