In an application for temporary injunction, the Applicant
brought a preliminary point objecting the appearance of the Respondent’s
Counsel for the Respondents, on the ground that the Respondent’s Counsel firm
had a retainer with the 2nd Respondent for a long time during which
the Applicant served as a director. The Applicant submitted that this was a
violation of section 7 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act
[Cap 12 R.E. 2002] and the Rules of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of the
Tanganyika Law Society. The Applicant stated that if the veil of incorporation
is lifted, the two directors of the 2nd Respondent now in dispute
were actually employers of the Respondent’s Counsel law firm. It was therefore
unsafe for the Respondent’s Counsel to act as such because he was likely to be
a witness in the dispute, and there was every likelihood of conflict of interest.
The Applicant prayed for an order that the Respondent’s Counsel withdraw from
the conduct of the suit.
The Respondent’s Counsel conceded that his firm had a
retainer with the 2nd Respondent but submitted that section 7 of the
Act and rule 15 of the Rules were not applicable because these rules relate to
attestation of documents and administration of oaths, none of which were
applicable in the present case. Regarding corporate personality, the
Respondent’s Counsel argued that whatever his firm did for the 2nd
Respondent/Company it was not service to the directors in person. Since the
Counsel’s firm did not act in different capacities for the parties, conflict of
interest could not arise and prayed for the dismissal of the preliminary
objection with costs.