On 28th of February 2013, one Pia Violet Jumo lodged a complaint with the applicant against the respondent. The complaint is based on the following facts which are largely common cause. The complainant and her husband (the complainants) entered into an agreement of sale with one Blessing Tusaumwe (the seller) in terms of which they purchased an immovable property from the seller for a sum of US$27 000. The transaction was facilitated by a real estate and property management company known as Tshukudu Properties & Management (the company). The respondent, who is the principal of the law firm Baera &... More
The applicant seeks the deletion of the respondent’s name from the register of legal practitioners. The respondent is a legal practitioner registered with the applicant. At the material time he was and is still the senior partner in Muringi Kamdefwere Legal Practitioners (the respondent’s law firm). He is alleged to have contravened s 23 (1) (d) and s 23(1)(c) of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] as read with By-Law 70E and 70F of the Law Society of Zimbabwe By-laws, 1982 (SI 314/1982) (By-Laws) in the following respects:
a) he failed to pay promptly to client money deposited in his... More
The respondent is a legal practitioner practising under the style of Puwayi Chiutsi Legal Practitioners. He was registered as such on 9 November 1992. The applicant contends that the respondent should be found guilty of unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy conduct arising from complaints brought to its attention by Eliot Rogers, the Honourable Mr Justice MANGOTA and Albert Mazhindu. The complaint by Eliot Rogers was that the respondent had abused funds he was supposed to hold in trust on behalf of Rogers. The complaint by Albert Mazhindu was that the respondent had forcibly ejected him from a house he was renting... More
This is a case where the respondent does not have any defence to offer to the allegations against him. The evidence against the respondent is overwhelming and largely corroborated by the respondent in his counter-statement and supplementary heads of argument. More
In the two separate applications the applicant seeks orders that the respondents’ names be deleted from the register of legal practitioners plus expenses incurred in instituting the proceedings. The respondents are registered legal practitioners. It is averred by the applicant that the respondents have conducted themselves in an unprofessional manner. This is because prior to the respondents’ admission as legal practitioners they were convicted of a criminal offence. The respondents did not disclose the convictions to the applicant upon applying to be registered as legal practitioners. More
