LAZ CLEARS GEORGE KUNDA LEGAL FIRM OVER THE KALENGA COMPLAINT

LAZ CLEARS GEORGE KUNDA LEGAL FIRM OVER THE KALENGA COMPLAINT

Lusaka-Friday 19th July 2024

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) Legal Practioners’ Committee has dismmissed a complaint of alleged unethical behaviour brought by the Kalenga Family against George Kunda & Company and Mrs. Irene Mwezi Kunda SC in a running legal dispute over Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited.

The Committee also noted that the late Hon. Kalenga was not a shareholder in Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited, though he was a director in the Company.

The Committee also noted that he was, however, the
majority shareholder and Director in Zambia Modern Enterprises Limited, which in turn, was a shareholder in Sun Pharmaceutical Limited.

“The documents presented to the Committee by the complainants do not show where any of them are listed as Directors of the company”, read the Ruling.

“The Complainants state that they are Administrators of the Estate of the late Hon Kalenga though no appointing documents were presented to the committee, neither were any documents to show that the Complainants were ever directors of Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited”, read the Ruling.

“It is therefore difficult to see how a conflict of interest arose when the practitioner represented Mr Sadhu, who as she said, was the only official representative of the company that she dealt with.”

Below is the Law Association of Zambia, Legal Practitioners’ Committee Ruling;

LAZ DECISION

“We are thankful to the parties for their submissions both written and oral, and have taken note of what has been presented before us.”

“Although going through the written submissions, especially from the Complainants, a lot of allegations have been made against the Practitioner, the focus of the Committee is only restricted to the allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the Practitioner.”

“These allegations are that the Practitioner found herself in a conflict position because she represented Mr Sadhu and his family in a case where the complainants had sued the same Sadhu in court.”

“They argue that because the Practitioner’s firm represented Sun Pharmaceutical Limited, she should not have acted for the Sadhus, their contention lies with the fact that the Pracitioner’s prior representation of Sun Pharmaceuticals, a company in which the Sadhu family and the Late Hon. John Kalenga held significant interests and created a conflict-of-interest situation.”

“And that when the Administrators of the Estate of the late Hon Kalenga initiated legal proceedings against Mr Sadhu and his family, the Practitioner should not have represented them.”

“In determining whether there exists or existed a conflict of interest on the part of the Practitioner, it is important to ascertain what the position of the parties were in Sun Pharmaceutical Limited .”

“From the records availed to the Committee by the Complainants, and particularly the exhibit marked |K6, it is noticed that the Directors of
Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited were among others Mr Sadhu and the late Hon. Kalenga.”

“The shareholders of the same company were:-
1. Zambian Modern Enterprises Limited
2. Padley & Venables (C.A) Limited,
3. Sunvest Limited Zambia.

“From this, the Committee noted that the late Hon. Kalenga was not a shareholder in Sun
Pharmaceuticals Limited, though he was a director in the Company.”

“He was, however, the majority shareholder and Director in Zambia Modern Enterprises Limited, which in turn was a shareholder in Sun Pharmaceutical Limited.”

“The Complainants state that they are Administrators of the Estate of the late Hon Kalenga though no appointing documents
were presented to the committee, neither were any documents to show that the Complainants were ever directors of Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited.”

“The Committee noted therefore that it is difficult to establish a nexus between the Complainants and the company called Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited, It is not in dispute that the late Hon. Kalenga was a director in the said company, but the same can not be said about the complainants.”

“The documents presented to the Committee by the complainants do not show where any of them are listed as Directors of the company. It is, therefore, difficult to see how a conflict of interest arose when the practitioner represented Mr Sadhu, who, as she said, was the only official representative of the company that she dealt with.”

“It is thus the conclusion of this Committee that the complaint against the practitioner has not been proved, and it is therefore dismissed.”