An order for the consolidation of these two matters was granted by UCHENA J, by consent, with no order as to costs, on 2 June 2006, for hearing before me on 7 June 2006 in Case Number 3157/06.The first application, Case No. HC5186/05, concerns an order for specific performance while ...
An order for the consolidation of these two matters was granted by UCHENA J, by consent, with no order as to costs, on 2 June 2006, for hearing before me on 7 June 2006 in Case Number 3157/06.
The first application, Case No. HC5186/05, concerns an order for specific performance while the second one, Case No.5264/05 seeks an order for the provisional liquidation of Zambezi Paddle Steamer (Pvt) Ltd (hereinafter called ZPS).
On 7 June 2006, at the request of the parties, I postponed the hearing to 13 July 2006.
When the hearing resumed, Mrs Wood, for Turner and Sons (Pvt) Ltd, applied for the forced recusal of Mr de Bourbon, for Dobrock (Pvt) Ltd, on the basis that he had been an arbitrator between these parties in 1994.
She referred to Pertisilis v Calaterra & Anor 1999 (1) ZLR 70 (H) as authority for the proposition that the legal practitioner who acted for a former client is precluded from representing a different client in circumstances where a conflict of interest is likely to arise between the former and present client. SMITH J set out the basis of the rule…, as being that:
“A legal practitioner who represents the adversary of his own client in litigation would clearly be violating his or her duty of loyalty and the common law rules against conflict of interest.”
He proceeded to survey American, English, South Africa, and Zimbabwean decided cases on the point at pages 74C–77F.
While he held that neither a partner nor his employee could represent an opponent of a former client in order to fulfill the adage that justice must not only be done but that it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, he nevertheless permitted a partner to represent the opponent on the basis that there was no allegation that the other partner had acquired information from the papers in the possession of his firm which could be used to the former client's disadvantage.
Mrs Wood contended, that, justice will not be seen to be done if Mr de Bourbon was allowed to represent Dobrock (Pvt) Ltd, especially on the liquidation case, where Turner and Sons allege a deadlock has manifested itself between the joint shareholders, a fact found by Mr de Bourbon, as arbitrator, to exist in his 25 June 1994 ruling.
She further foresaw a need to call Mr de Bourbon on the deadlock issue in the liquidation case.
Mr de Bourbon countered by contending that he did not represent either Dobrock (Pvt) Ltd or Turner and Sons (Pvt) Ltd but acted in a quasi-judicial capacity.
He knew of no law which debarred him from representing either party as long as he had not possessed confidential information which could be used to the detriment of his client's adversary. He referred to Benmac Manufacturing (Pvt) Ltd v Angelique Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd 1988 (2) ZLR 52 (H).
In that case, Mr de Bourbon accepted a general retainer from Angelique Enterprises in a matter in which that company was involved in a dispute with Albco. He was, at that time, already seized with a retainer for Benmac Manufacturing in its contest with Angelique Enterprises, supra. He had accepted the retainer in the matter against Albco after assurance from his instructing attorney that there would be no conflict of interest.
It was accepted, in that case, by that attorney, that, he had not come into contact with any confidential information which would prejudice Angelique Enterprises in its contest with Benmac. The Law Society, and two other counsel, had absolved him of any impropriety, but, the Managing Director of Angelique Enterprise, Mr Holland, was not satisfied with their findings and advice.
REYNOLDS J held, that, Angelique Enterprises had not shown that Mr de Bourbon had in fact become acquainted with information that could be used to its detriment which would result in real mischief and real prejudice if he continued to act for Benmac Manufacturing. He did express his reservation on a legal practitioner acting for and against his client in the same or different matters.
Mr de Bourbon submitted that he had not acquired any information that he could possibly utilize to the prejudice of Turner and Sons (Pvt) Ltd and that his impartiality in 1994 had not been impugned by any of the parties.
I went through the arbitral award.
It concerned and dealt with the share of each joint shareholder in the extra costs, which were above the original cost of construction of the large commercial houseboat which Zambezi Paddle Steamer (Pvt) Ltd (ZPS) was to own.
Turner and Sons (Pvt) Ltd was not able to show what information Mr de Bourbon accessed which could prejudice its present defence and claim. If anything, I was satisfied that the arbitral award stands on its own and there would be no need to call the arbitrator to testify on it.
I accordingly dismissed the application for the forced withdrawal of Dobrock (Pvt) Ltd's counsel.
