Disqualified advocate wins law court bid

THE Court of Appeal has nullified the cancellation of Mr Christian Laurent Rutagatina from the roll of advocates in Tanzania, as decided by the Advocates Committee nine years ago and later confirmed by the High Court, for alleged professional misconduct.

Justices January Msoffe, Steven Bwana and Sauda Mjasiri ruled in favour of the reinstated advocate last week after allowing his appeal against the judgment of the High Court given on September 6, 2006, by a panel.

“We firmly hold that given the prejudice the appellant (Rutagatina) suffered as a result of this case, which lasted for more than nine years now, the appeal must be allowed, as we hereby hold,” the justices ruled.

They added, “We pronounce that for the reasons stated herein, the entire proceedings from the Advocates Committee to the High Court is declared to have been a nullity and hereby quashed. “Mr Rutagatina is reinstated to the Roll of Advocates forthwith unless prevented by other lawful cause.”

The justices found that in determining his case, the Advocates Committee did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Advocates Rules, which require the complainant to petition in writing to the Secretary together with an affidavit stating matter of facts to support his application.

In the case in hand, they observed, the complainant, Mr Clavery Mtindo Ngalapa, did not set out in an affidavit facts which he was relying upon and merely wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Committee. The complainant, according to the justices, also never presented affidavit to support his allegations.

“The Committee then proceeded to hearing the complaint without observing such asserted requirements which in our considered view were conditions precedent. Non compliance with those procedural requirements therefore rendered the Committee’s proceedings a nullity,” they ruled.

They concluded, “We hold that the trial before the Committee and the proceedings before the High Court were a nullity. Considered in the circumstances of this appeal, we are of the firm view that neither the Committee nor the High Court considered the matter against the appellant along these lines.” Mr Rutagatina was convicted by the Advocates Committee in 2005 having being involved in demanding money from his client, Mr Ngalapa, for the alleged purpose of bribing a judge and court officials in a case involving a 54m/- claim.

The Committee’s decision was upheld by a High Court panel in 2006. Court records show that on November 18, 2005, the Advocates Committee handed down a decision in which it found Mr Rutagatina guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee, thereafter, directed that his name should be removed from the roll of advocates. Having being aggrieved by the decision, Mr Rutagatina lodged an appeal before the High Court.

But the said three judges of the High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety and agreed with the findings of the Committee that his conduct had an aim of getting more money from his client.

They found that Mr Rutagatina had written a chit containing names with a certain amount against each name and presented the same to his client (Ngalaba) as a basis of getting more money with which to bribe court officials to enable Ngalaba’s claim succeed.

“It is established beyond shadow of doubt that the appellant (Rutagatina) put forward a demand of money to his client and in blunt language told his client he was going to use the money to bribe court officials,” the High Court panel had ruled.

According to the judges, the appellant was a person who hatched the evil scheme in which he demanded money from his client which he purported to buy justice. “Like the Advocates Committee, we find this professional misconduct bordering on criminal behaviour,” they held.

Daily News: