By 
Lusitu Chambers has denied responsibility for a claim involving more than US$15,700 allegedly mismanaged from the estate of the late former First Lady Maureen Mwanawasa, arguing that the lawyer implicated in the matter had left the firm before the disputed transactions occurred.
The position is contained in a defence filed in the Lusaka High Court on June 3, 2026, in response to a lawsuit brought by Chipokota Mwanawasa and State Counsel Patrick Matibini in their capacities as co-administrators of the estate.
The plaintiffs are seeking to recover more than US$15,700 allegedly paid for legal services connected to the administration of the estate.
In its defence, Lusitu Chambers rejected allegations that it is liable for the conduct of lawyer Steve Milimo, maintaining that he ceased to be an employee of the firm in June 2022.
According to the firm, Milimo had no authority to represent or bind Lusitu Chambers after his departure and any legal services he subsequently rendered to Mrs Mwanawasa were undertaken independently and in his personal capacity.
The firm further argues that it was never formally engaged by the late former First Lady in relation to the matters complained of and therefore owed her no professional duty of care.
It maintains that no solicitor-client relationship existed between Lusitu Chambers and Mrs Mwanawasa that could give rise to liability.
Lusitu Chambers states that upon receiving correspondence from the plaintiffs, its managing partner responded by clarifying Milimo’s employment status.
Read More: Constitutional court clears M’membe, Banda to contest August elections
The firm says it informed the plaintiffs that Milimo was no longer attached to the practice and that any dealings with him after his departure were outside its control.
It further states that its managing partner offered assistance by providing the plaintiffs with Milimo’s contact details.
According to the defence, the conduct forming the basis of the claim occurred after Milimo had left the firm and therefore cannot be attributed to Lusitu Chambers.
The firm also argues that the transactions in question were conducted directly between Milimo and Mrs Mwanawasa, away from its offices and without its knowledge or involvement.
Lusitu Chambers further contended that Mrs Mwanawasa was aware that Milimo was no longer employed by the firm at the time she allegedly made the payments.
It maintains that the lawyer was acting independently and dealing with her in a personal capacity.
On that basis, the firm argued that it cannot be held liable for any loss allegedly suffered by the estate and has asked the court to dismiss the claims against it.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments