THE High Court has ordered Mashonaland West Provincial Affairs and Devolution minister Marian Chombo to pay lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa US$100 000 accrued in legal fees after her law firm represented her in divorce proceedings with former Cabinet minister and ex-husband Ignatius.
High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara ordered Chombo to pay the money including interest.
Chombo had engaged Mtetwa to represent her during her acrimonious divorce proceedings that spanned several years.
According to the court papers, despite Chombo receiving extensive legal services, the minister failed to settle the agreed legal fees, leading to the application.
Chombo engaged Mtetwa in June 2011 to represent her in divorce proceedings that were before the High Court and filed a notice of assumption of agency with the court.
Mtetwa provided extensive legal services, including attending numerous pre-trial conferences and filing various interlocutory applications which resulted in positive outcomes for the minister.
Keep Reading
- Govt completes 166 houses for Cyclone Idai victims
- Chegutu mine collapse: Govt appeals for help
- Harare residents plot protest over cholera
- Employ from communities: Minister
The court heard that negotiations between Chombo and her estranged husband led to a partial settlement of proprietary issues, which culminated in a consent order granted by the court in August 2012.
However, outstanding issues were referred to trial and Chombo continued to represented by Mtetwa’s firm.
The court heard that Chombo did not pay legal fees.
On September 2, 2014, Chombo signed an acknowledgment of debt, agreeing to pay US$100 000 in two instalments of US$50 000 each. The first instalment was due on September 31 and the balance was to be paid by mid-December of the same.
Chombo, however, failed to honour the acknowledgment, prompting Mtetwa’s firm to issue summons in January last year seeking settlement of the debt.
During submissions in court, Mtetwa outlined the steps taken to protect Chombo’s interests, including sourcing pleadings from her previous legal practitioners and the High Court Registrar when the former refused to release her file.
Mtetwa said she attended several pre-trial conferences on behalf of the defendant, sometimes in her absence and handling numerous interlocutory applications throughout the divorce proceedings.
She said the litigation was characterised by its complexity and toxicity, necessitating the engagement of an advocate to ensure impartiality during settlement negotiations.
Mtetwa’s evidence highlighted the extent of the legal services provided, which included defending against applications brought by her former husband, successfully opposing his application for execution pending appeal and preparing for the trial.
Mtetwa also testified that Chombo’s appeal was delayed due to the disappearance of the High Court file, which required her to apply for the determination of the appeal on the available record.
Her efforts ensured that the appeal was eventually heard and determined by the Supreme Court.
Mtetwa argued that the acknowledgment of debt Chombo signed was clear and binding and further stated that the agreed fee of US$100 000 was reasonable.
She also testified that Chombo made numerous promises to settle the debt but failed to make any substantial payments, adding that the only amount she received was a partial payment of US$2 360 in January 2024, after the issuance of summons.
Chombo confirmed engaging Mtetwa and acknowledged receiving legal services from her.
However, Chombo contested the amount claimed by Mtetwa, arguing that it was excessive and that there was no agreement on the US$100 000 fee.
She further argued that one Jamu, who Mtetwa regarded as her agent, had the authority to negotiate the fee on her behalf and denied undertaking to pay the US$100 000 in September 2023, as alleged.
Under cross-examination, Chombo admitted that she signed the acknowledgment of debt, adding that she did not recall the circumstances under which she did so.
She also acknowledged that Mtetwa had represented her diligently and that she had benefited from the legal services provided.
However, she insisted that the fee was unreasonable and suggested US$50 000 as fair compensation.
She also testified that she made efforts to settle the debt by offering stands received through the divorce settlement saying when Mtetwa attempted to verify the existence and value of the stands, it was discovered that the stand numbers provided did not correspond to any existing stands.
Chombo also referred Mtetwa to Jamu, who was developing a piece of land on her behalf near Lake Chivero.
However, no payment materialised from this arrangement, as Jamu later informed Mtetwa that a loan application made to CBZ Bank had been declined.
Justice Mambara noted that the central issue in the case was whether Chombo is liable to pay Mtetwa the agreed sum saying the acknowledgment of debt was pivotal.
“The defendant’s defence lack merit and is inconsistent with her own admissions and actions. The acknowledgement of debt remains binding and the court disregards the belatedly raised defence.
“Costs were claimed on the legal practitioner and client scale. However, during her oral testimony, Chombo was very honest and really remorseful that she failed to pay for the services rendered.
“Despite the spurious defences raised in her papers she made an undertaking to pay for the excellent legal services rendered by the plaintiff once she was in a position to pay.”
Justice Mambara also ordered Chombo to pay interest at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of full payment including the costs of suit.