Lawyer George Kadzipatike may face lawsuits from clients Maxwell Chirombo and Loreen Beleko for professional negligence, according to court records.
High Court Judge Maureen Kondowe determined that Kadzipatike’s representation was inadequate after they won a case against ETG Inputs Limited in the wrong jurisdiction.
The company contested this in the High Court, stating the proceedings were irregular. Chirombo and Beleko, employees at the ETG Inputs shop in Nkhamenya, Kasungu district, were arrested on suspicions related to underweight and misidentified fertilizer bags.
With Kadzipatike’s assistance, they successfully sued for damages due to false imprisonment and defamation.
However, though the alleged crimes were committed in Kasungu District, the cases were tried by the Mzuzu Senior Resident Magistrate sitting at Nkhata Bay, where the two were awarded the total sum of K74, 000, 000.00 as damages for false imprisonment, defamation, and malicious prosecution.
Further, the court awarded them the sum of K2,000,000.00 each as reimbursement for legal fees although there was no any order for costs being made in their favour. They were also awarded without an assessment of costs at the time of the trial or hearing or at any other time.
In her order, Kondowe said the Senior Resident Magistrate Court Sitting at Nkhata Bay had no jurisdiction to preside over, determine and dispose of the civil matters at Nkhamenya which is in Kasungu district.
Further, she also noted the fact that Nkhamenya has a Police Unit that is within the jurisdiction of Kasungu Police Station.
“It was the considered opinion of this court that the Senior Resident Magistrate Court Sitting at Nkhata Bay had no jurisdiction over these civil matters on the following grounds of law: (a) Section 36 of the Courts Act is clear that subordinate courts ordinarily sit in places where the Chief Justice directs. The Chief Justice directed the Senior Resident Magistrate who irregularly and unlawfully presided over these civil matters to determine and dispose of civil matters that would arise in Nkhata Bay District while sitting there.
“It is so ordered; (b) Pursuant to section 45 of the Courts Act the Senior Resident Magistrate Court Sitting at Nkhata Bay should have transferred these matters to Kasungu District on the grounds that the cause of action for the matters that were in dispute among the Applicant and the Respondents arose at Nkhamenya a geographical area that was within the jurisdiction of magistrate courts that are in Kasungu District.
“The 1st and 2nd Respondents (Chirombo and Bereko) shall each repay to the Applicant their 50% share of the judgment debt sum of K74, 000, 000.00 in the sum of K37, 000, 000.00 forthwith. It is so ordered. The I st and 2nd Respondents shall also each repay to the Applicant their 50% share of the sum ofK4, 000, 000.00 being an unlawful reimbursement of purported legal fees in the sum of K2, 000, 000.00 forthwith
“Counsel for the Respondents shall facilitate the repayment failing which the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply for a tracing order for the movement of the funds into and out of the bank accounts for the business of Counsel for the Respondents pursuant to the Bankers Books Evidence Act (Cap. 4:05 of the Laws of Malawi),” reads part of the order dated November 21 2024
Kondowe further ordered that since the Senior Resident Magistrate Court Sitting at Nkhata Bay is immune to court proceedings, the two can commence civil claims for damages for professional negligence against their lawyer in a court of competent jurisdiction.
“This court was also alive to the loss that the I st and 2nd Respondents would feel in their pockets on complying with this order by repaying the Applicant. Assuming that no white-collar financial crimes were intended to be committed through the irregular and unlawful court proceedings that got conducted before the Senior Resident Magistrate Court Sitting at Nkhata Bay the remedies of the 1st and 2nd Respondents lie in the pursuit of civil claims for damages for professional negligence. This court exercises its discretion on costs to order and direct that the legal practitioners for the Respondents shall personally pay the Applicant the costs of this application. It is so ordered.
“The present application would not at all have been necessary if Counsel for the Respondents had resolved the jurisdiction question on receiving instructions to act on behalf of the Respondents. It is so ordered. This omission made it appear to this court that this was probably so due to that there was forum shopping for the hearing determination and disposal of the civil matters that arose among the Applicant and the Respondents. Forum shopping is a malpractice that the courts have condemned again and again.,” reads part of the order
