The judge struck out the alleged environmental rights violations for lacking “prior proof of bad faith in the spillage”. In their defence, lawyers Charles Mpaka and Mweya Kamchedzera, representing PressCane, described the claim as an abuse of the court’s process because a 2023 court interpretation dismissed similar petitions by Lastone Matthews and 401 others as well as Shamil Suleman and a group of 50. In the previous cases, the court ruled that Section 19 accords licensed private firms immunity from litigation unless where complainants fail to prove that they acted in bad faith.

The spill caused by flooding in January this year prompted Ma lawi Env i ronment a l Protection Authority (Mepa) to ban PressCane and the National Water Resources Authority to impose a K40 million fine on the company pending a clean-up and pay-outs for affected communities. Made the ruling: Muhome. | Nation In the judgement, Muhome refused to depart from the earlier interpretation of the legal immunity that the contested section accords State authorities applies to private firms licensed to handle, transport and manage waste. This upholds the Lastone Matthews cases as the true interpretation of Section 19, which reads: “Legal proceedings shall not be brought against a member of the authority, the director general or other officer of the authority, a lead agency, an analyst or any other person duly authorised by this Act in respect of anything done in good faith in accordance with the provision of this Act.” Muhome said that after examining submissions from both parties and words used by lawmakers, he was in agreement with PressCane’s lawyers that “the limited immunity discharged by prior proof of bad faith in Section 19 extends to private enterprises like the defendant”.

He said: “This court considers that the plain and statutory contextual reading of Section 19, as concluded by the Lastone Matthews cases, recognises the public interest and private sector partnership for the sake of greater good. This court has no plausible reason for departing from the precedent set by the Lastone Matthews cases.” The judge evoked Section 56(2) (b) and (c) which does not only give Mepa and other relevant agencies statutory duty to control the handling, storage, transportation and disposal of environmental waste but also to delegate this responsibility to private entities under the licence.

The section criminalises the handling, storage, transportation and disposal of waste without permits from Mepa in consultation with relevant agencies. The verdict comes at a time demands for businesses to balance the yearning for profit with environmental protection, human rights and development interests have become hallmarks of sustainability laws and policies. The determination slams floodgates on looming lawsuits from the community affected by the January spills, which forced Mepa to order PressCane to implement remedial measures and pay-outs.

In an interview yesterday, PressCane chief executive officer Bryson Mkhomaanthu said the judgement provides clarity on the application of the environmental protection law “in circumstances involving licensed operations undertaken in good faith”. He said: “For PressCane, the ruling is encouraging in that it reinforces confidence in the legal framework within which regulated industries operate and affirms the importance of balancing environmental protection with lawful industrial activity, a principle the court expressly addressed. “That said, the ruling should not be interpreted as diminishing our responsibility regarding the January 2026 environmental incident, which is a separate matter.

Our focus remains firmly on raising the bar on compliance, remediation, rebuilding stakeholder trust and completing all actions required by regulators to support a safe and responsible return to operations.” In the matter, PressCane lawyers tussled with the accusers’ counsels’ Patrick Zindikirani, Precious Kalulu and Collins Banda. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs