Litigation funding in Zimbabwe

Litigation was frowned upon in Zimbabwe based on the old customs practiced in England in terms of which maintenance and champerty were frowned upon. In terms of the old customs, a third party could not enter into a contract with a person in a case in which they did not have an interest in consideration for a return of a share of the damages or other proceedings of the litigation. This, old custom was also recognized in Roman-Dutch law, and such contracts were called pact de quota litis and were deemed to be contrary to public policy.

The position has since changed. The law now permits litigation funding in Zimbabwe. The Legal Practitioners (Contingency Fee Agreements) Regulations, 2014 defines a contingency fee agreement as:

“an agreement entered into between a registered legal practitioner and his or her client in terms of which no fee, other than court fees or disbursements, is payable by the client for the legal practitioners services in connection with any proceedings unless the proceedings result in a decision or settlement in the client’s favour, wholly or partially.”

To fortify the above, in the case of Gill Godlonton & Gerrans v Mpofu HH 65-17 the High Court stated that:

“Conversely, it is permissible for a legal practitioner to indicate the likely costs of litigation to a client. It is also appropriate for a legal practitioner to agree with his client over charges for work to be done. The Legal Practitioners (Contingency Fee Agreements) Regulations, S.I 154/14 allows a legal practitioner to enter into a contingency fee agreement with a client regarding legal services, if in the legal practitioner’s opinion there is a reasonable prospect of success in such proceedings. The agreement must be reduced to writing in a document signed by both the legal practitioner and the client.”