Law Association of Zambia v Malunga (2021/HP/1317) [2023] ZMHC 8 (16 June 2023)

IN THE Hl1GH COURT 10F ZAMB,IA 2021/HP/ll317 AT THE PRINCIPAL· REGISTRY H'OLDEN AT LUSAKA (Ci uil Jurisdiction) BETWEEN.: IN THE MATTER OF: · PRACTITIONERS ACT CHAPTER 30 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA. IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 22(3}(B·t IN THE MATTER ,o·F: A REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF: A COMPLAINT AGAINS? A LEGAL PRACTITIONER BETWEEN: THE LAW ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA APPLICANT AND ,JOYCE CHAAZE MULUNGA RES!'ONDENT BBFORB THE HONOURABLE . LAD'Y JUSTICE P'. K. YANGAILO . AND MR. JUSTICE C. JCAF,UNDA, IN CHAMBERS,, ON THE l (:iTH DAY OF JUNE, 20.23. For the Applicant; Mr. S. Lungu, SC. - Law Association of Zambia. For the Respondent: Mr. K. F. Bwalya - Messrs. KBF and Partners, Jl II Pae e JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY P. K . :t'ANG.tll. O, J. CA SES REFBRRBD 1 TO; 1. GeoTge. Nalachi lmbezue v The COunal of Legal Bduc(ition ( l 98S) ZR 10.,' t'i'nd 2 . Law A,;:.wci~tioJ1 ()/ Zambia II Gideon ,\lwewa - 2007 I HP/ 200-2. 1. The Legal Pracn11·onem Act Chapter 30, Volume 4 of the Laws a/Zambia; 2. 'nte fltgh Co~rt Act, Chcpter 27, Volume 3 <Jfthe Laws- a/Zambia: and 3 . ThB Legal Practitioners {Di.sdprtnmy Prooeedi'rigsJ Rules, Clmp.t.trr 30, Vahlrrw 4 of the Lau,s o/Zambta. lNTRODUCT·ION 1.] This action was ]aunched by the Applicant , Law Association of Zambia tLAZ,,). The action is against the Respondent, one Joyce Chaaz~ Mulunga, who is its member and legal practitioner. The Disciplinary Committee ,of LAZ, which is established in terms of Section 4 of The Legal .. Practitioners Act1 ~ found the Dt;:fendant guHty of failure to account for money which came into her possession as Counsel, which amounts to misconduct that warrants a practitione.r to be struck off the Roll of Practitione:rs. Accordingly, the Discip liuary Commit.te recommended that the Respondent should be strnck off from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. In tenns of Section 28 (1}' of The Le.gal Practitioners Act1; th· High Court of Zambia has the jurisdiction to, strike off I,egal practitioners from the ro11 and hence, the matter was placed before this Court. Accordingly, this Judgmen' is in respect of the relief sought by the Applicant that the Respondent be struck from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. BACKGROUND 2. l The genesis of this matte:r is that the Respondent was a ]egal practitioner practicing under the name and style ,of JC Mulunga & Company. The Respondent's client, one Kaf1.vimbi l{atongo I who was ~rieved with the· Respondent's conduct1 lodged a w-r-itten complaint with LAZ against the Respondent alleging that the Respondent had fai]ed to account for funds amounting to [{741,000.00. The Respondent denied the alleg,ations and stated that she had not misappropriated any funds . The complaint was initially heard by the Legal Practitioners' Committee ('rLPC"') of LAZ1 which gave the Respondent several opportunities to appear before it. The Respondent did not appear as requested and the LPC proceeded to consider the complaint in Lhe absence of the R,espondcnt resulting in the suspension of the Respondent. 2.2 Thereafter> the mat er was refer-red to the LAZ Discipllinary Committee rLDC1.1) and on the date of hearing1 the Respondent was again. absent. LDC proceeded to hear the complainant's testimony and rendered its Ru Ung on 2 7ll1 J31 Page April 2018 1 wherein it establlshed that the Respondent had failed t,o account fo:r money which came in her possession as Counsel which amounts to misconduct. The misconduct was considered to b so severe as to warrant the Respondent to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners and LDC recommended accordingly. 2.3 Consequently, LAZ filed into the High Court a Notice of Motion pursuant t,o ,Order XXX1 Rule 15 of The High Court Rule·s2, on 28th October, 2021, seeking an Order to stri_k out the Respondent's name from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The Notice was supported by an Affidavit. AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE 3, l On behalf of th Applicant, M·r. 'Martin Muyayi Lukwasa, Secretary of the LDC, deposed the Affidavit dat ·d 28tb October, 2021 1 whose gist is that Kafwimbi Katongo, lodged a complaint against the Respondent b fore the LPC. At the time~ the Respondent was practicing as a legal practitioner in the Grm styled JC Mulunga and Company. The comp]aint is exhibited marked "MML 7". It is to the effect tha the Responden had failed to release funds/proceeds from the sale of Lindex Building, on Plot 8611 Lupenga Road 1 Lusaka. providing instructions ~or the release of the funds two It was alleged that despite the clien months prior, th Respondent had been very evasive and unprofessional in her conduct and that she provided false J4 IP & e information and excuses as to why she has not re·leased funds per instructions. 3.2 In response to the comp]aint, the Respondent wrote a letter dated 17th Fe brumy 1 20I61 wherein she indicated that she had been unwell at the time. She slated that the property was being paid fo,r in instalments by the purchaser and that the complainant, who is her client, gav various instructions regarding who to pay the money to, which included chih:h•,en of the family, terminal benefits to, former employees and legal fees for other files. She :fu:rther stated that the ,exe:rcise was still on going and that there had been some miscalculations in some instances as payments wer,e collected in cash from th Rcspondent,s office and other payments were made into bank accounts. She also stated that as soon as she had recovered she would reconcile he:r clienfs account and that there had been no misappropriation of any kind. 3 .3 After hearing the complaint, the LPC suspended the Respondent from practice and on 25th August, 2017 ~ referred her case to the LDC, \\rhich consequently heard and determined the matter and rendered a Ruling on 27th April 1 2018. Therein 1 it decided that the Respondent had failed to account for money, which had come into her possession as Counsel ► ,vhich mnounts to misconduct. l went on to recommend for the Respondent's name to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The :report of the proceedings, evidenoe and relevant documents \vere produced in th ,exhibits marked "MML I to 34". 3 .4 In response to this application, the Respondent filed he'I·dn an Affidavit in Opposition on 16th November. 2022, in which she conceded that Kafwimbi I{atongo lodged a complaint against her but that it was heard by the LPC in her absence. She aver-red, interalia, that it was noted that she had. deducted her full legal fees for the conveyance when the purchaser ma.de the first payment and since thenJ she had been very professional in her conduct. She further noted that it was aUcged that she had misappropriat ed her cHen t's money from the said sa]e ba$ed on her failure to provide and account or :report. 3 .5 The Respondent deposed that when the matter was referred to the LDC, she was not made aware of the proceedings as the LDC did ·not personally serve her a notice of hearing to enabl her attend the disciplinary hearing and present her defence despite her being of fixed abode within Zambia. She stated that her contac details were known by LAZ as they a.re provided at subscription every year. 3 .6 I · was deposed that despite the LDC hearing the matter de nouo, neith r the Respondent nor the complainant were served with a notice of hearing to ·na.ble them present the J6 I P a g re case afresh before the LO C .. Consequently, the decisi,on was reached without her knowledge. 3. 7 The Respondent deposed that the finding of the LDC that she had failed to accoW1t for money which had come m her possession ,vas based on a report of the LPC and not by way of hearing the complaint afresh. 3.8 It was further deposed that contrary to the finding that the Respondlent ha.d failed to account for mon,ey which came in her possession she has since reconci]ed and accounted for the money, which came in her possession and to that effect signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the complainant, dated 27t h March, 2020. A copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding was produced as "JCM 111 • Based on the said reconciliation , it was deposed that this application has become nugatory. 3.9 On account of the foregoing, the . Respondent stated that all outstanding ,natters relating 'to th complaint against her had been reso]v,ed and accounts properly r conciled. She stated that had she and the complainant been served with the notice of hearing and given an opportunity to be hea1-d1 the said Memorandum of Understanding1 uJCM l" 1 would have been brought to the attention of the LDC_ 3.10 The Respondent deposed that the proceedings wer,e irregular for failure by the Applicant to personally serv,e on J7 1Page the complainant and herself and to hear the matter de novo. It -r.va.s also deposed that tbere is n,o basis upon which this Court can rely on to grant the o:rder sought by the Applicant. HEARING 4.1 When the matter came up for hearing on 171h March 1 2023, learned Counsel f:or the Applican. t, Mr. S. M. Lungu S, C., entir,ely relied on th Notice of Motion and Affidavit that had been filed in support of his client's case. 4.2 The learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied on the Respondent's Affidavit in Opposition, which he augmented orally by submitting1 inter aUa, that since the Respon dent's suspension, she has not been engaged in any legal practice. [twas submitted that having been suspend ed :for clos~ to 5 yea.rs and having reconciled the figures with the complainant 1 there has been restitution and accountability on the Responden t's part. 4-. 3 It was further submitted that striking the Respondent off the Roll of Legal P!ractitioners would be too steep a p nalty and that the Court should consider other penalties considering that the complaints leading to the Respondenfs suspension no longer exist. The ho]ding in case of Ge,org'e Nala.chi Jmbewe v The Coun_cil of Legal J'S II Page Edu~ation1, was cited in support of the foregoing submission. 4.4 Furthermorei it was submitted that the ag of the Respondent and her standing suggest tha she has reflectod on the seriousness of th" matter and is remors iul. [t was also submitted that having been a single partner in the firm, she has no other source of income and has engaged herself in the work of Non GovemmentaJ Organisations, helping women between Lusaka and Mongu. Counsel prayed that the Respondent be given a second chance as. he believed her character is not the same as it was five years ago. 4.5 [n response to these submissionst the Applicant's Counsel acknowledged the case citedl and invited the Court to pronounce itself on the issue. CON,SIDERATION AND DECISJON 10F THE COURT 5.1 We have considered the application~ the Affidavit evidence the oral submissions of the parties and the authorities cited. 5 .2 The facts in this case are that the Respondent is an advocate practicing under the name and sty] · of JC Mulunga and Company. On 9 t h December,, 2015, her client, Kafwimbi Katongo, lodged a. complaint against her to the LPC a]leging that she had failed to release the J91 Pa ge proceeds from. the sale ,of the cHenes property and that on severa] occasions she had stated that she had transferred the money when in fact not. 5.3 The LPC convened a hearing after receiving the complaint and after the hearing, the· LPC r,equested th Respondent to refund the sum of K741,000.00 to her client within 21 days or suffer suspension. Subsequently1 the LPC suspended the Respondenfs practising certificate and referred the matter to the LDC. 5.4 The matter waS> detetmi:ned by the LDC and a ruling rendered on 27th April, 2018, in which the LDC recommended the Respondent to be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners for misconduct 5.5 From our analysis of the evidence· on reoord 1 the foUowing are th issues for determination: - 1. Whether the Respondent was sufficiently notified of the hear-ing by the LAZ Disciplinary Committee (LDC); 2. Whether this application has been rendered nugatory by the Respondent's reconciliation of the clients account; and 3. \Vhether the Court should grant the order striking off the Respondent's nrune from the Ron of Practitioner-s. JlO I P a 8 e S. 6 We shall address the issues for determination in the m anner they have been identified s tarting with whether t h e Respondent was sufficiently n otified of he hearing by t he LDC, By the Respon den t's Affidavit in opposition to the application she con tends that the LDC d id not personally serve the notice of hearing on her to enable h eT attend the disciplinary h earin g and presen her defence, d esp ite the fact that she was of fixed a bode and tha , her contact details were well known by LAZ. 5. 7 Section 22 i(3} (a) of The Legal Practitioners Act1 provides as follows on th e n otification to a practi tione.r of a h earing by t h e LD c~ - "Ths Dfs41!"1.pltnary Committee shaU give the· pr-actitioner whose con,duct ts the su.bject•mat:Ur of the a • . icati'.on an. o . i iea-r be ore it and shaU .f;U mfsh. him with a copy ~ any affld<!J.vit· made in support of the app Hcation, and shal[ gh>e· him ru1 opportunity' of inspecting any other relevant document n.ot tess than seven days before th.e date ftxed /o,. the hearing .. " (Court. 's emphasis) 5.8 Addition allyj ·The Leg,al Practitioner,s (Disciplinary Pr-oceedings) Ra le provides a s f ollo"vs; - ,q'n the case of an app1l':katio,n aga:i.nst a p .ractltfon.cr in whtch, in the optn.ion of the ,Committee, .i pnm.a /aci.e· case ts· shown tn /a.uour of the app1l!cation1 the Commi ttee shaU fix. a day fer the hearing,, and the. JU II Pag c .. Sec~etam,sh aU sen,e not~ce th.,,ereofon ea.ch party· tQ the proceediM§ and shea H se:n.te on '6'.at:'h party, other than the appltcant, « copy of the application and qfflda.vU. There s·ha:U be at least twenty·-0:ne ,days betw-een ths service of ang Mich notiee ,and thre day fixed the~in for the hearir:19. i• (Cctut 1s emplU2Sis) 5.9 From the foregoing~ it is clear that the LDC was required to no,tify the Respondent herein of the date of the hearing to ,enable her attend it and pres nt h er defence. From our analysis of the LDC r-eport1 particu]arly the Ruling of the LDC 1 it is clear that att mpts were made by the LPC to personally serve the notice of hearing on t h e R,esponden t. From the Ruling on reoo,rd, it is clear that the bearing of the complaint was first Hsted for 25th August, 2017 but she did not at.tend it. Further, in an ,effort to notify her of t h e h earing, the LPC served the Respondent by substituted. service by advertising in the Zambia Daily Mai] wspa.per on 3rd a.nd 28~h March, 2018, but the R spondent still did not attend t he hearing, 5, l O Based on the foregoing, it is our view that the LPC, which had notified tbc Respondent of the hearing, gave sufficien t notice of the hearing to the Respondent and as such, the LDC cannot be faulted for proceeding to determine the complaint in the absence of the espond ent, Our finding is fw·ther for ·ified by Rule 9 of The Legal Practitioners Ji12 IP a e e (Disciplittary Proceedings} Ru fe_s3 , which prov.ides as follows: - "1/ any party /ails to appear at the .hearing., the Committee may, upon prolJ.f ,o/ service on such po.rt.y ,of the notice of hearing., proceed to hear and detennble· ths a.pp lication in his absence." 5 .1 1 We further note that th e Respondent contends that the complainant was not notified of t h e hearing and that therefore, th.e LDC relied on the r,epor of the LPC to determine th matter and as such, it did not hear the matter de nouo. On our analysis of the evidence on record~ particularly the Report on t h e Disciplinary Committee Proceedings., we find that the complain ant was presen t at the hearing and testified as a witness. In our view, the presence of the complainant at the hearing is an indi,cation that the complainant was notified of the hearing and that the LDC heard the matter de novo contrary to the Respondent's assertion in h er Affid avit in Opposition. 5. 12 Based ,on the foregoing and the fact t hat the.re was sufficient proof of service on the Respondent, the Respondent's contention that she was not served with the notice of h earing and that the LDC did not hea.r h er testimony de novo Jla.cks merit and is accordingly dismissed. J13 I Page .5 . 13 W1 now turn to1 consider the second issue for determination of whether this a.pplication has been rendered nugatory by the Respondent's reconciliation of her client's account. The Respondent, by her Affidavit in Opposition to th application, conte·ndls that she has since reconciled her client's account on which the complaint \Vas based and as such? this application tc have her name struck off the- RoB of P.racti tioners has become nugatory. 5 .14 To support her assertion, the Respondent produced a copy of the Memorandum. of Understanding, dated 27m MarchJ 2020 1 executed by the Respondent, on one hand and Muchinga Katongo and M\lraba Katongo, on the other hand, wherein the Respondent and the said Muchinga Katongo and Mwaba Ka.tango indicated hat they had reconciled and resolved the accounts on ,vhich the claims were based and that the complainants have no further claims against the Respondent. 5.15 in determining this issue it becomes necessary t.o point out that advocates are accountable to high standards of integrity and are prohibited. from engaging in behaviour that would amount to pTofessional misconduct to,\vards their clients,~ the Court and peers. 'fhe fo:regoing position is ,emphasised in the provisions of Sect'ion ,52 of The Legal Practitioners Act1 1 ,vhich provides as foUo\vs~ - J14 I Page a} take in.structfo,ns in a.ny· case ~oept from. the party on whose beha (f he i's retained or some perso.n who Is the reoagn:l.sed agent of such pa'l't!J, or some sen.rant, t'l'elation. or ./Hem! anthorlsed by the party to giH such tnstn.ictlo:n.s; or (b) mislead or allow ,any court to be misled, so th-at such oor.t'1: makes an o.rder ·which su:eh praetiti.oner knows to be wrong or improper-; or (c} tender, ,or 9jve or consent to the ,-eeention out of an.y fee paid or payable to him fo,. hls .seNJt.ces of ,any gratuity feT procuring Or' havtng procured the .employment in any legal b•usin,ess of hlms1!"lf OP- ,any other practitioner; or {dJ directly or indirectly procure or attempt to, pracurs the employmen,t of hi'rmr-eV ,or h ,ts partner or assistant as a practittoner, through or by the htkrvttntton o/ any person to whom remuneration Jo,- obtaining such employment has been given by· hil'Jii, or agreed or promised to be so gfven.; or e)' dlrec.tty or indirectly ho:fd h'imse{f out a.r permi't hlmseu ·to be 'held OU~ whether by name or othenui:s-e, as bet ng· p·repared to undertake. p ·ro/ess.i.onaZ busin,ess for any fee ,or iC(J,nsfck.m:tfon. whtch sha. H be less than the scale of charges (if any} fer the time betng prescribed or appr-ove.d by· the Remunemtton Committee; or (J} ayree with Ids c Hent either he fore, during or after the· conduct of any no.n~eontenttous pro,fe·55toncd JlS IP .i g e businiess to undertake such. bustness for any fee o.r co,nskleratfon whatsoel':ler thcd shalt be less than that set ,out tn the .sc-ale of chaTges (U anyJ for the time being p,r-escnbe.d or approved by· R'em-uneration Committee; Of" the (g) commit any breach of any_pf the p·rovtsions ,of Part V1-ll~ or d~lve or mislead MY cUent Of" czHow him ·t o be deceived or misled in any respt!ct ma-ter1al to such c Uent; or· co.mmit any contempt of court;· or t:lontruvene the pro·utstons of section fifty-five .. ~1 (C-ourt.,s emphasis} (I) UJ 5.16 Th e u nderlined part VU] in the provision of the law cited. above, refers to the responsibility of legal practition ers to keep accoun t of t h eir clients, accounts. Section 58 and Section 60, which fall u nde:r part VIII of The Legal Practitioners Act1 p rovid es as foUows: - "SB. Every: pr,actitioner who holds or- ~eh.res money· on ,of a client (save money herein,~er ,acceu:nt exprusl'g ,exempted from, the appH.oatton oJ this sect:iionJ, sha. U without u nidue delay pay such money into a cu"ent Qr deposit aceount a,t a &an.k. o,r into a deposit account ,at ,4 bu::llding soc-f.etyj to be kept in the name of the pmctlttoner in the title of which the wor-d •·cusnt" shall appear (her:eina,ft.er referred to as ~•a cH'6nt account'7• . A~y pmctition.e-r may keep O·Re client account or as mar1y such accounts as he thin.ks .flt: Provided that, when. a prQctttlone,,. receives a. cheque ,or draft rrepriesen.tilng in, pa.rt. .money b~,kuigtng to the ,client cind in part money· due to the· pr-actitioner, 11£· m.fJy,. whe~ practtcable, diilide the amount of the cheque or drteft, ,and pay to t he cHent accoun:t that part. ,on Zy which represents money b-,dongtng to the client. In ,any 0th.er ctis• he shall pay the whoie ,of such ,cheque or d:raft h1.to the c Hent account. 60. No money shall be drawn from a cUent account other than• ,('a} money properly required for pCJyment to or on behalf of ,a client or Jor or towan:fs paynuJnt of a debt due to, the pnzctltianer from a client or money drawn on the· cUent'.s cmtlwrity, or money lrl respect of which there is a Habl H~ of the cHsnt" to the practitioner provi.ded that the money so dr,awn shc:dl not in any case ,exceed the total of the moDey so .he,tdjor the time bei~g for such client; (bJ such ,money belo,nging to the pra.ctitfoner as may have been pa. Id fnto the account under paragniph (b)i or (dJ ,of section fifty-nine; (c:J 1 money which may by mistake or ,accident haue· been pa.id :tnto such account in oontnlc.rention of scctio.n fifty-nine . .,~ JU' I P age 5. 17 Addition ally, Section 53 of The Legal Practi~oner-s A.ct3 p r ovid es as follows: - '~ny practitioner who contravenes any of the provisions of section fifty-two shaH be deemed to be s,uUty of prafesm.onal mtsconduct,, and the Court may, in. its di:scmtfon, eUhe~ admonish such pr-actttionet"> or suspend .him from practice; or cause Ids name to, b-e stnlck of/ the Rol r piu rsuan.t to .section twenty·•eightt Pro'llided that- 1(i. J fn. sectfon fifty-two nothii~g in this section o.r contalned sha H superse.de-J, lessen or t.nterfere with the powers wste.d in the· Court, under or by virtue o/ section t W'3·nty~eight or otherwise, to deal. wfth ,offence·s by pro:cti.tto.ners oj' whataoeuer nature· or kind, whether mentioned ii n. misconduct or section ~two or otherwise; (ii}I nothi ng in se~·tionfi,fty.two shall restrf'ct thspow-ers of the· DbmipHnary ,Committee under section twenty two to tncpdre fnto or ,de,d w:ith misconduct by practitioners of wha,tsoeuer nature or ~nd~ flftY-'two, or whether- mentioned secti,on. in: otherwise. ,, 5.18 From the foregoing provision s 1 it is clear that legal practitioners have a resp onsibility to act ,vith honesty, integrity and diligence in dealing with their clien t's accounts and runds. Any m isapplica tion of clients.> .money amounts to professional misconduct. In the event that a legal practitioner i~ found liable for conduct atnounting to professional misconduct, the practitioner would be subjected to discipline. The essence of the foregoing Sections 52 and 53 of The Legal Practitioners Act1 is to pl"Otect merob ·rs of the public against ,advocates who ma.y 1i,vant to tak,e advantag c-" of them. 5.19 ln the case before us, a complaint was made against the Respondent that she had failed to account for her client's funds in t he sum of K74l,000.00 1 being a portion of the amount that she had received on behalf ofheI" clients from the purchasers of he:r clients' property. The Respondent failed to account. fo.r the said sum not"ithstanding that she was requested to do so by her clients on nu1nerous ,occasions. 5. 20 Fro,m the evidence in support of the aUegations, it is clear t h at through a letter addressed to the Respondent d ated 26'h Novemb r~ 2015? her client demanded an account of the sums received by the Respondent. Subsequently, the Respondent's client wrote a letter of complaint to the LPC on 8th December, 2015 and in response, the LPC notified the Re spondlen or th c,omplaint. 5.21 Approximately a year later, the Respondent in a letter dated, 17th February 2016 add.r,es,sed to the LPC indicat d that she was in the process, of reconciling her client's account. On 27th March, 2020 1 a Memorandum of J1-9 II Page Understanding was signed between Muchinga. Katongo and Mwa.ba Ka.tango and the Respondent indicating that they had reconciled the account and tha her clien 1 the complainant had no further claim. 5.22 In our view, the period of time between the complainant's letter requesting an account from the Respondent, dated 26th No,vember1 2015 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27th March, 2020~ shows that it had ta.ken the Respondent approximately four years and eight man ths t,o, reconcil ~ h " t client's account. 5 .23 We note further th at the Respondent,s evidence did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why she had withheld and failed to account fot b r client's funds. Based on the foregoing 1 we find that the Respondent1s action amounted to professional misconduct, which is prohibited under Section 52 of The . Legal . Practitioners Act1 and entitled the LDC to take action. S. 24 Further, we find that the fact that the Respondent has reoo,ndled her c lient's account does not e:xonera.te the Respondent from the allegations of misconduct as by this this Court has been tas~cd to consider application I whether ther were any short comings in the disciplinary process of the applicant and \Vhc·ther the find.mg of professional misconduct against the Respondent in the Report of the LDC warrants her to be struck off the Roll of J20 IP ag e • Legal Practitioners. Th erefore, this application cann ot be rendered nugat ory by the Respondent's subs,equent r,econciliation of ber dient's account We are persu a d ed in the position. we take by the case of Law Assoc1·atton ,of Zambia v Gideon Mwewa2; where the Court held that no mitigation could dilute a serious offence of misconduct connni t.ted by a legal practitioner. since hon esty and integrity are at the heart of the legal profession . 5.25 Accordingly1 the . Respondent's contention tha.t this application has been r ndercd nugatory by her subsequent recon ciliation of her c lient's accounts 1a.cks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 5.26 We now turn to consider the third legal issue of whethe_r the Court should grant the order striking off th e Respondent's name from the Roll of Practitioners. Fr,01n our analysis of the disciplinary process culminating in the . Ruling dated 27th Aprill 2018, in which the LDC recommended that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners, we find that the LDC acted in accordance with the law. 5.27 Furthe:r1 we have not been persuaded by the Respondent's contention t h at she was not accorded an opportunity to be hew-d by th LDC and that her subsequent reconciliation ,of h~r client's account renders this application nugatory. In our view, the LDC Ruling is sound and serves to uphold JU I Page the principles of integrity and honesty that are at the h eart of the legal profession. For this rcaso11; we have n o intention to interfere with the recommendation. 5 .28 Accord ingly, we order Ms. J oyce C h aaze M u]un ga1s nmne to be struck off from the RoU of Legal Practitioners f:Or thwitll. 5.29 The parties s h all b eru- their ovm costs. 5.30 Leave to appeal is granted. SIGNED,,. SEALED AND DEUVERED AT LUSAKA Tms 16TH DAY OF JUNE~ 2023. ~ HlGH COURT JUD - J22 I P d g i1