CHINTU MALAMBO writes
LUSAKA lawyer Germano Kaulungombe has been dragged to court by over 300 farmers in Lusaka West for allegedly signing a consent judgement without their approval in a land dispute.
The land dispute was before the Court of Appeal.
Osick Chilembo and 359 others farmers in Lusaka West Farms Community sued Kaulungombe trading as Marshal Chambers in his personal capacity and are seeking a declaration that Kaulungombe had no authority to act for the plaintiffs or at all.
According to their statement of claim Chilembo and the others said that Kaulungombe was once their advocate in a matter which was before the Court of Appeal.
He said there has been an active appeal case pending before the court of Appeal from the High Court judgement dated 1 November, 2019 which was previously being handled by Kaulungombe until instructions were withdrawn from him by the plaintiffs early September 2019.
Chilembo stated that due to the insistence of Kaulungombe to continue handling the plaintiffs matter, the plaintiffs had no choice but to alert the members of the public that Kaulungombe was no longer acting for them in that matter and an advert was published in the Daily Nation newspaper by way of press release on September 30, 2019.
“Without the plaintiff’s knowledge the defendant in his capacity as their lawyer and without their instructions whatsoever purported to have drawn a consent judgment to withdraw the said active appeal case which was pending before the Court of Appeal and got it signed by the respondents in that case.
“The said consent judgment which contained very prejudicial clauses to the interests of the plaintiffs was accordingly approved and signed by the court of Appeal Judges on February 19, 2020,” the plaintiffs said.
Chilembo and the others claimed the consent judgement was drawn by Kaulungombe himself and got it executed irregularly.
They contended that they did not give written consent or instructions to the defendant to proceed to act for them and enter a consent judgement.
“The defendant has had very unusual interest in the plaintiff’s farms and had been conducting his affairs in a very dubious way contrary to the plaintiff’s interest, the main reason for the plaintiffs to have withdrawn instructions from the defendant to continue representing them in any way or whatsoever,” they claimed.
They stated that the consent judgment Kaulungombe entered into has prejudiced the plaintiff’s rights and interests as they have always been willing to prosecute their case in the court of Appeal.
“As a result of the conduct on the part of the defendant the plaintiffs have suffered damage and loss and risk being evicted from their farms in an event that the respondents in the matter before the court of Appeal execute the said fraudulent consent judgement,” they claimed.
The 359 farmers are now claiming for damages for fraud, inconvenience and anxiety caused to them.
They also want exemplary damages, Interests on the sum found due and any other reliefs that the court may deem fit.
