Mr Bashir Ziya Quddusi and wife Marina were accusing top
lawyer Mr Aston Musunga of letting them purchase a US$320 000 Gunhill house
when he allegedly knew it was non-transferrable.
In a claim brought to the High Court in July 2021, the
couple listed Mr Musunga, his law firm Musunga, Makaka and Associates and the
estate of the late David Chambwera Kamunhu, as respondents.
The couple sought an order forcing Mr Musunga and his law
firm to refund them US$320 000 plus interest at the prescribed rate from the
date of signing of the agreement of sale.
But after hearing arguments from both parties’ counsel,
Justice Samuel Deme rejected the claim by the couple against the lawyer and his
firm.
He struck off the roll the application against the estate
of the late Mr Kamunhu on the grounds that it was improperly cited and
consequentially not properly before the court.
Reasons for the order would be made available in due
course.
Mr Musunga yesterday felt vindicated by the court’s ruling.
“It is really important that people should not bring frivolous and vexatious
allegations against innocent lawyers in a bid to just smear their reputation,
for no apparent reasons.”
Through their lawyer, Mr Jonathan Samukange, the couple
argued that they bought a property from the late David Kamunhu on October 5,
2012.
Musunga and Associates were conveyancers, but Mr Musunga
himself allegedly dealt with the sale.
Before signing the agreement of sale, Mr and Mrs Quddusi
requested a copy of the title deed, which Mr Musunga duly produced.
But the couple claimed that the property was encumbered and
so could not be transferred, and they were not told this.
Arguing the case for Mr Musunga, Advocate Thabani Mpofu
dismissed the claims made against his client. He explained to the judge that
after the couple instituted legal proceedings against Mr Musunga in 2017, an
order for transfer was granted and he started the transfer process which at
some stage was stymied by an appeal which had been filed by CBZ Bank.
The couple, Adv Mpofu told the judge, eventually took over
the transfer but after paying CBZ Bank some money. He added that the couple
succeeded in a matter they brought against CBZ Bank, but it was not clear why
such payment was made.
The court also heard that it was not clear how much was
supposed to have been paid by them.
In fact, a challenge raised on that specific issue had not
been responded to. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment