Zimpapers Logo

Court Reporter
A Harare lawyer Mr Puwayi Chiutsi, who was ordered to pay back $70 000 to a client by the High Court, has appealed against the judgment at the Supreme Court. The judgment has been suspended pending appeal case number SC 578/14. High Court judge Justice Joseph Mafusire, in a letter to the registrar of the High Court asking for reasons for the judgment noted that an appeal had been filed.

Mr Chiutsi was ordered to pay back $70 000 in 2013 following a transaction in which he sold immovable property on behalf of Mr Eliot Rogers, but did not remit the full amount.

The property was sold for $266 000, but Chiutsi allegedly gave Rogers $150 000.

“Judgment in the sum of $70 000 plus interest at the legal rate from the 10th of September 2013, be and is hereby granted in favour of the plaintiff,” said Justice Mafusire.

He said Chiutsi should pay costs of the suit calculated on a scale as between attorney and client.

Justice Mafusire said the defendant was a registered and practicing legal practitioner and Mr Rogers was his client. “On 23 April 2014 the plaintiff issued out a summons against the defendant claiming a capital amount in the sum of $116 000,” he said.

“The money was the balance of the proceeds of the sale of a property the transfer of which had been handled by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had converted the money to his own use.

“In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed a capital amount of $70 000 and prayed for an order that the defendant’s bill of costs, which purported to amount for the balance of the sale proceeds, be referred for taxation.”

Justice Mafusire said through an estate agent, Mr Rogers had sold an immovable property for $266 000 and Chiutsi had been instructed to attend to the transfer.

The purchase price was then transferred to Chiutsi’s trust account who then only remitted $150 000 and $116 000 remained outstanding.

“The plaintiff pressed for it,” said Justice Mafusire. “In late September 2013 or early October 2013 the defendant rendered three bills of costs.

“The first dated 19 March 2013 was in the sum of $25 179.25. The second, dated 27 September 2013 was for $10 847. 37. The last, with no discernible date on it, but with an amount of $47 028.83 was said to be the summary of all legal work done by the defendant and to comprise the total due by the plaintiff.”