The High Court has disqualified Mudimu Law Chambers from representing Huzodi Investments Private Limited in an ongoing mining dispute, citing a conflict of interest.
The decision was made following objections raised by one of the respondents, Mr. Giveus Mutombo, who argued that the firm’s senior partner, Mr. Mudimu, had previously represented him in a related criminal case, gaining access to confidential information that could now be used against him.
Huzodi Investments filed a lawsuit against several parties, including Mr. Giveus Mutombo, Mr. Ken Mutombo, Zhang Qing, Lius Skeng Keng, and the Minister of Mines. However, Mr. Mutombo opposed Mr. Mudimu’s involvement in the case, highlighting that the lawyer had acted as his representative during a criminal case at the Bindura Magistrates’ Court related to the same mine at the center of the civil dispute.
Through his lawyers, Advocate Garikayi Sithole and Mr. Madlabe, Mr. Mutombo expressed concerns that Mr. Mudimu’s prior access to sensitive information could unfairly disadvantage him in the current proceedings.
“It was shocking to discover that Mudimu Law Chambers was now representing the opposing party in this matter,” said Mr. Mutombo, calling the situation a clear conflict of interest.
Despite arguments by Advocate Keith Kachambwa, representing Huzodi Investments, that no privileged information had been identified, Justice Gibson Mandaza sided with the respondent. The court found a strong connection between the criminal and civil cases, both stemming from the same mine.
Although Mr. Mudimu had renounced his agency in August 2024, the court ruled this step was insufficient and untimely.
“By the time Mr. Mudimu renounced his agency, the damage had already been done,” said Justice Mandaza, who upheld the preliminary objection and ordered Mudimu Law Chambers to withdraw from the case.
“Accordingly, I cannot allow Mudimu Law Chambers to continue representing the applicant (Huzodi). It is so ordered that Mr. Mudimu and his law firm cease acting for the applicant forthwith,” ruled Justice Mandaza.
Justice Mandaza emphasized the legal profession’s ethical obligations, particularly the need to avoid conflicts of interest and protect client confidences.
“In the present case, having acted for the second respondent, it was incumbent upon Mr. Mudimu to advise the applicant to seek alternative legal representation,” he stated.
The court further underscored that conflicting interests include those of former clients and highlighted the ethical duty of lawyers to preserve confidences even after a professional relationship ends.
“This duty extends to all partners within a law firm. Courts have consistently expressed disdain for legal practitioners who represent opposing litigants in disputes.”
For comments, Feedback and Opinions do get in touch with our editor on WhatsApp: +44 7949 297606.
For comments, Feedback and Opinions do get in touch with our editor on WhatsApp: +44 7949 297606.