onlinemedia
Herald Correspondent
THE Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot interfere with unterminated proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist.
This principle was reinforced in a judgment handed down in the case involving Harare lawyer Aston Musunga and the Law Society of Zimbabwe, with Musunga seeking to overturn a finding of unprofessional conduct before the society had completed the process by setting a penalty.
Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, delivering the unanimous decision of the three judges sitting as an appeal bench recently, stressed: “Superior Courts will not interfere in unterminated proceedings of a lower court, tribunal, or other administrative body but will wait for the completion of those proceedings before interfering with any decision taken in the middle of those proceedings.”
Musunga had sought to overturn a High Court decision striking off his application for review of the Law Society of Zimbabwe’s disciplinary proceedings against him.
Musunga, found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Law Society, challenged the guilty verdict before the penalty was pronounced, arguing that the proceedings were irregular.
The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a 2022 complaint by a former client, Praxedes Ngwenya, who accused Musunga of failing to adequately supervise his subordinates at his law firm, Musunga and Associates.
Ms Ngwenya claimed the firm mishandled her labour dispute with Lusitania Primary School, citing procedural errors, delays, and incompetence.
The Law Society, after investigating the matter, found Musunga guilty of neglecting to protect his client’s best interests, in violation of the Legal Practitioners (Code of Conduct) By-Laws.
Musunga was invited to submit mitigation before a penalty was set but instead filed for a judicial review, alleging gross irregularities in the proceedings.
The High Court struck the application off the roll, holding that the matter was premature as the disciplinary proceedings had not been finalised.
The court underscored that interference with ongoing proceedings is an exception, not the norm, and requires proof of serious prejudice to the litigant.
Justice Mathonsi, affirming the High Court’s decision, stated: “No system of justice can permit a litigant to stop midstream participating in administrative proceedings and seek to challenge such proceedings on review without showing the requisite prejudice.”
The Supreme Court dismissed Musunga’s argument that his conviction was final and that he was entitled to seek review before sentencing.
Justice Mathonsi noted that Musunga failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or prejudice warranting early intervention by the courts.
The court emphasised that judicial policy dictates that review proceedings should not disrupt ongoing processes unless there is a gross irregularity that destroys the proceedings entirely.
Citing established legal precedent, Justice Mathonsi explained:
“The general rule is that Superior Courts must wait for the completion of the proceedings in the lower court before interfering with any interlocutory decision made during the proceedings. The exception to the rule is that only in rare or exceptional circumstances where the gross irregularity complained of goes to the root of the proceedings, vitiating the proceedings irreparably, may Superior Courts interfere with ongoing proceedings.”
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The court reaffirmed that Musunga must allow the Law Society to finalise its proceedings before seeking judicial intervention.
Online Reporter