Zimpapers Logo

Lovemore Chazingwa Herald Correspondent

A prominent Kadoma lawyer, Advocate Ignatius Murambasvina has been deregistered from operating as a legal practitioner following recommendations from a Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal (LPDT) set up by the Law Society of Zimbabwe.

The LSZ is an association mandated with registering lawyers and regulating how lawyers and law firms operate in Zimbabwe.

The LPDT was chaired by Chatukuta J., deputized by Musakwa J. with Mr D. Kanokanga and Mrs S. Moyo as members.

The four member tribunal ordered that his name be removed from the register of legal practitioners, notaries public and conveyancers.

The tribunal found Adv. I. Murambasvina, a senior partner at I. Murambasvina Legal Practitioners, guilty of unprofessional, dishounourable and unworthy conduct after going through evidence presented before it and sittings on June 11, July 9, 2021 and on January 25, 2023.

The ruling, gleaned by this publication, was handed down on January 25, 2023.

“He had been charged with contravening s 23 (1) (c) of the Legal Practitioners Act [ Chapter 27:07 ] as read with sections 70 E and 70 F of the LSZ regulations, 1982 (SI 314 of 1982) and s 23 (2) (b) of the Act,” the ruling reads in part.

It is established that Adv. I. Murambasvina, herein after referred to as respondent, “… had been instructed by a client, Maraja Investments Private Limited t/a Kurima Gold to collect various amounts totalling US$114.705.56 owed by some 33 debtors. Despite having been paid US$1000 deposit towards his fees, he failed to fully account to the client in respect of the collections.”

The second charge arose from that, “As at the date of the letter of complaint, the respondent had not furnished Messrs Chitewe Law Practice or client with an account of the client’s portfolio despite numerous communication with the respondent both, telephonically and in writing,” the ruling further states.

He is also alleged to have stymied the law firm, Messrs Chitewe Law Practice, from taking over agency at the request of client when complainants sought alternative legal representation.

It is proved that, “On February 17, 2014, Messrs Chitewe Law Practice requested in writing that respondent renounce agency to enable the firm to carry out the client’s instructions. The respondent did not respond to the request. Messrs Chitewe Law Practice, was therefore, not able to carry out agency on behalf of the client.” the ruling notes.

The tribunal concluded that respondent’s conduct has tarnished the integrity of the legal profession. The legal profession regulatory body added that the deregistered legal practitioner “showed no remorse and is not a fit and proper person to continue practicing law”.

The body ordered that the respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the applicant in connection with these proceedings.

The LSZ ruling is recorded under HH 48/23 and LPDT 10/19.