Court says LAZ right to suspend lawyer Bwalya for stealing client’s money

Court says LAZ right to suspend lawyer Bwalya for stealing client’s money

A Lusaka High Court has upheld the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ)’s decision to PF lawyer Kelvin Fube Bwalya’s practicing certificate for stealing client’s money.

Kelvin Fube Bwalya is the director of another PF aligned and funded NGO he calls Anti Rigging Limited. He is also one of the ‘lawyers’ representing embattled acting Chief Justice Lombe Chibesakunda.


This is not the first time Kelvin Bwalya has been suspended from practicing for stealing client’s money.

High Court Judge Florence Lengalenga dismissed Mr Bwalya’s application for judicial review seeking the Court’s indulgence to quash LAZ’s legal practitioner’s committee decision to suspend him for misusing his client’s money.

Ms Justice Lengalenga in her judgment said LAZ was on firm grounds when it suspended the applicant’s practicing certificate because he was given an opportunity to be heard by LAZ disciplinary committee where he admitted the allegations against him.

Kelvin Bwalya

Kelvin Bwalya

Ms Justice Lengalenga said she was of the considered view that Mr Bwalya’s application for judicial review was prematurely brought to her court as he did not exhaust all administrative channels available to him as a legal practitioner.

” From the foregoing, I find that there was no procedural impropriety in the manner in which the LAZ committee dealt with this matter, this court finds that the committee complied with the rules of justice as the applicant was accorded time to be heard and admitted on his own,” she said.

Ms Justice Lengalenga said the applicant should have appealed against the decision of the legal practitioner’s committee before going to court.

Mr Bwalya had dragged LAZ to court and accused the legal mother body of having misdirected itself when it recommended that his practicing certificate be suspended because he did not fail to pay Gertrude Kaseko her K 38,000.

He also submitted that LAZ also misdirected itself when it ruled that the applicant failed to render books of accounts to the committee’s satisfaction contrary to evidence on record.

Share this post