A MARONDERA man has taken the Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) to the High Court, challenging the dismissal of his complaint against a lawyer.
In a chamber application for condonation for late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to file, Garikai Shutu argues that he was unfairly denied justice when the LSZ Disciplinary Tribunal threw out his complaint against legal practitioner Gerald Saidi.
Shutu argues that the tribunal’s decision was “procedurally unfair, biased and legally unsound” and is now seeking to have it reviewed and set aside.
According to court papers, Shutu stated that he filed a complaint against Saidi, cited as the second respondent in his application, whom he accused of acting as his legal practitioner while at the same time acting for Energy Park (Private) Limited, a party Shutu was in conflict with.
He argued that that amounted to a clear conflict of interest that the LSZ, cited as the first respondent, failed to address.
“The first respondent’s tribunal failed to apply its mind to the material issues and evidence presented during the disciplinary hearing,” Shutu said in his founding affidavit.
Keep Reading
- Zanu PF quashes push for diaspora vote
- Biti reported to Law Society
- Govt shuts door on foreign lawyers
- Lawyers flag prosecutors as the most corrupt
“Despite submitting a well-documented complaint supported by affidavits, written correspondences, court records, and annexures — which clearly demonstrated that the second respondent was misleading the first respondent's disciplinary authority, the second respondent was conflicted, and the first respondent's disciplinary tribunal failed to meaningfully interrogate or address the evidence before them.”
He accused the LSZ of accepting Saidi’s denials, “without any reasoned justification”.
“As a complainant alleging serious ethical violations by the second respondent, a senior legal practitioner, I reasonably expected neutrality, openness and institutional independence,” Shutu said.
“However, the first respondent’s disciplinary tribunal exhibited a predisposition to dismissing the complaint and appeared unduly deferential to the second respondent.
“Specifically, it failed to test or probe the second respondent’s denials, despite contradictory evidence.
“My assertions were disregarded without adequate reasoning, while the second respondent’s unsubstantiated responses were accepted at face value.”
Shutu wants LSZ to file a detailed response to the complaint within seven days of the order.
But in its opposing affidavit, LSZ said there was no section of the Legal Practitioners Act or any law in Zimbabwe, which stated that the first respondent should make a detailed response to a complaint.
“The first respondent investigates a complaint, then makes findings and a determination based on the evidence brought forward by both parties to the complaint,” LSZ secretary Edward Mapara said.
“It is not compelled to respond to a complaint. In any case, it is not clear from the prayer as to whom this detailed response is to be filed.”
Mapara denied the allegations raised by Shutu, insisting that investigations were properly conducted.
“Applicant failed to submit compelling evidence to substantiate his claims,” he said.
“This is the reason why he prays that he be allowed by this honourable court to file supplementary evidence.
“It is denied that the proceedings were conducted in a manner that violated principles of natural justice, impartiality and procedural fairness.
“It is the applicant who wants to arm-twist this honourable court into granting an order which is procedurally incompetent.”