Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has disqualified Mudimu Law Chambers from representing Huzodi Investments Private Limited in a mining dispute, citing a conflict of interest.
The ruling came after one of the respondents, Mr Giveus Mutombo, objected to the firm’s senior partner, a Mr Mudimu, acting in the matter, as he had previously represented him in a related criminal case.
Huzodi Investments had filed a lawsuit against several parties, including Giveus Mutombo, Ken Mutombo, Zhang Qing, Lius Skeng Keng, and the Minister of Mines, among others.
However, Mr Giveus Mutombo argued that Mr Mudimu, who had represented him in a criminal case at the Bindura Magistrates’ Court, had gained access to confidential information about the mine central to both the criminal and civil disputes.
Through his lawyers, Advocate Garikayi Sithole and a Mr Madlabe, Mr Mutombo expressed concern that this confidential information could now be used to his detriment.
He was “shocked” to learn that Mr Mudimu Law Chambers was representing the opposing party, calling it a clear conflict of interest.
Advocate Keith Kachambwa, representing Huzodi Investments, argued that no privileged information had been identified and urged the court to exercise discretion.
However, the court found that the criminal and civil matters emanated from the same mine, making the connection between the two cases undeniable.
Although Mr Mudimu had renounced his agency in August 2024, Justice Gibson Mandaza ruled that this came “after the horses had already bolted.”
He upheld the preliminary objection, disqualifying Mudimu Law Chambers from acting in the matter.
“Accordingly, I cannot allow Mudimu Law Chambers to continue representing the applicant (Huzodi) in this matter. It is so ordered that Mr Mudimu and his law firm be and are hereby ordered to cease acting for the applicant forthwith.”
Justice Mandaza pointed out the ethical obligations of lawyers, particularly their duty to avoid conflicts of interest and preserve client confidences.
“In casu (the present case), having acted for the second respondent (Mr Giveus Mutombo), it was incumbent upon Mr Mudimu to advise the applicant to look for another lawyer,” he said.
“Conflicting interests include the interests of an existing client or the need to preserve a former client’s confidences. Mr Mudimu had an obligation to preserve his former client’s confidences.”
The court noted that the ethical duty extends to all partners in a law firm and reiterated longstanding judicial disdain for lawyers representing opposing litigants.
“Where there is a dispute between parties, the same legal practitioner or firm cannot act for both parties. Courts of law have expressed a disdain for lawyers who represent both litigants.”
The ruling serves as a strong token of the legal profession’s duty to uphold ethical standards and avoid conflicts of interest.
