Zimpapers Logo

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
Lawyers are challenging local authorities’ by-laws and resolutions compelling law firms to pay for traders’ licences in order to offer legal services. Such by-laws and council resolutions, the lawyers said, were in contravention with Section 219 of the Urban Councils Act.

Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) has filed an application at the High Court seeking an order declaring the by-laws and council resolution to be null and void.

LSZ listed Harare, Mutare and Chinhoyi municipalities as respondents in the application.
The lawyers said the requirement by the local authorities had an effect of wrongfully interfering with the independence of the legal profession.

LSZ said some local authorities had agreed with the lawyers that the requirement should be scrapped, but more demands were being made to law firms for payment of the fees.
To that end, LSZ said it was now seeking an order declaring the practice illegal.

LSZ argued that in terms of the Legal Practitioners’ Act, it had the power to regulate the operations of lawyers and to issue them with practicing certificates.
Lawyers, according to LSZ, should not apply and pay for traders’ licences from council.

“As a result, therefore, every legal practitioner, who is registered by the applicant and issued with a valid audit certificate is by law, entitled to conduct at any place the business of a legal practitioner without further requirements or formalities,” reads an affidavit by LSZ executive secretary Mr Edward Mapara.

Mr Mapara said the councils resolved to promulgate the by-laws as a desperate fund-raising strategy.
“For some time now, between 2007 to date, local authorities, including first, second and third respondents, have contrived to raise income by requiring legal practitioners to apply for and obtain licences upon payment of a fee,” he said.

“A number of legal practitioners affected by such demands have objected to them by way of correspondence and in some instances, reported their concerns to the applicant, which has similarly addressed the relevant local authorities.”
Mr Mapara said legal practitioners were not traders, hence, they should not pay for traders’ licences.

“It is the view of the applicant that this honourable court should assist the respondents in appreciating that trading licences are for traders only and that legal practitioners are not traders,” he said.

“In any event, they are licensed by a different authority altogether, which is the applicant.”
Mr Mapara said although some councils appeared as if they had agreed to stop the practice, more demands appeared to be coming to the law firms.

“Regrettably, notwithstanding this development, first respondent (Harare City Council) has persisted in its demands of various legal practitioners that they apply for and be issued with trading licences for a fee.

“It would seem clear, therefore, that the undertakings given in this connection in the past are no longer being observed and a demand of members of the applicant that they produce trading or operating licences and pay licence fees, therefore is still being made,” read the affidavit.

The three local authorities are yet to respond to the application.