By Dickson Jere
A UPND cadre who had been detained during the PF reign sued government for unlawful detention and false imprisonment. Without much ado, the Attorney General agreed to pay the cadre compensation through a Consent Judgment. An agreed amount of K2 million was to be given to the UPND cadre while his lawyer’s costs was to be paid by government amounting to K300,000.
Promptly, the government paid the K2.3 million to the law firm. However, the lawyer decided to exercise a lien and keep the entire amount, arguing that they had represented these cadres in a number of cases in Court during the PF era but never paid legal fees. He said UPND secretariat had made those arrangements with lawyers who represented the cadres.
The action by the lawyer prompted the UPND cadre to sue his own lawyer in the Lusaka High Court arguing that he cannot exercise lien on his compensation.
The High Court, after hearing both sides, adjudged thus;
“I thus do not need to belabor the point that there is no legal justification available to the Defendant (lawyer) for him to exercise a right of lien over funds he received on behalf of the Plaintiff who was his client,” the Judge said.
He observed that the right procedure for the lawyer was to issue fee notes or bills to his client for the work done and if he fails to pay within 30 days, he can then sue the client in court without taking his money.
“Counsel cannot simply dip his hands into the clients’ account and haul out money received on behalf of a client just because counsel has issued fee notes…” the Judge said.
The Court went ahead and issued a general warning to lawyers to desist from this conduct which is not backed by law.
“Thus, the growing tendency by legal practitioners to withhold client money under the guise of exercising a lien is wrong as it has no backing of the law…” he said, adding that lawyers must follow correct procedures of getting their outstanding fees.
He Judge has ordered that the lawyer should return the K2 million to his client forthwith and further that the client be paid damages by the lawyer for breach of trust and being deprived of his funds. The Judge also ordered that the money be paid with interest.
Case citation – Joe Mabuti v HBM Advocates (2023/HP/1251) and Judgment delivered last month on the 15th November, 2024.
This is an important case for lawyers and law students. When client has not paid the bill, the recourse available is to sue after issuing fee notes.
