A prominent Harare law firm now faces a courtroom test over one of the most basic obligations in legal practice: what happened to money entrusted to it for a specific client transaction?
Jacqueline Sande and Sande Legal Practice appeared before Harare provincial magistrate Ruth Moyo facing allegations involving nearly US$34,000 that a client says was paid for conveyancing, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority clearance and stamp duty. Sande was granted US$150 bail.
The allegations have not been proven in court. But they raise questions that go beyond one disputed payment. When clients place money in a law firm’s trust account, they do so on the understanding that the funds will be safeguarded, properly accounted for and used only for the purpose for which they were provided. If the State’s allegations are ultimately established, the case would represent a grave breach of that confidence.
What happened to the money?
According to the prosecution, a farmer from Karoi engaged Sande’s firm in January 2023 to handle the sale of his residential property at 16 Pershore Rise, Northwood, Mt Pleasant, Harare. The property was reportedly sold to Timothy Maregere, with the proceeds deposited into the firm’s trust account.
The State alleges that the client later deposited a further US$33,979.50 on 4 May 2023 to cover conveyancing-related expenses, including Zimra clearance and stamp duty.
The central question is direct: if the money was received for those defined purposes, why does the prosecution allege that the required work and payments were not completed?
Was the transaction delayed by administrative complications? Were the funds used for another authorised purpose? Were payments made but not properly recorded? Or, as the prosecution alleges, was the money wrongfully retained or converted? Those questions can only be answered through documents, bank records, transaction files and evidence tested in court.
A trust account is not a black hole
The case highlights the special responsibility attached to legal practitioners who hold client funds. A trust account is not an ordinary business account. Money placed in it is not a firm’s unrestricted working capital. It is supposed to be held and handled for the benefit of the client or another party entitled to it.
That arrangement depends on transparency. Clients should be able to obtain a clear account of money received, payments made, balances remaining and work completed. Where a transaction does not proceed as expected, the client should receive a prompt explanation and, where appropriate, a refund.
The prosecution alleges that the complainant confronted Sande after discovering that the agreed work had allegedly not been carried out and demanded the return of the funds. It further alleges that Sande and the firm failed to account for the money, leading the complainant to report the matter to Borrowdale police. The investigation was later referred to the Criminal Investigations Department’s Commercial Crimes Division.
If those allegations are accurate, the issue is not merely a disagreement over fees or a routine conveyancing delay. It would raise fundamental concerns about client protection, financial controls and professional accountability.
Questions the firm must answer
The court process will determine the criminal allegations, but the public-interest questions are already clear. What written instructions governed the US$33,979.50 payment? Was a detailed estimate or trust-account statement provided? Were Zimra and stamp-duty payments actually made? If not, where did the money go? Was any portion deducted as fees, and if so, was that deduction authorised and disclosed?
The firm should also be able to explain what steps it took after the client demanded an account and why the dispute was not resolved before it reached the police. A reputable professional practice should not leave a client uncertain about the whereabouts of nearly US$34,000.
The allegations also expose a wider vulnerability in the legal services sector. Many members of the public lack the resources to monitor conveyancing transactions closely. They rely on lawyers to manage property transfers, tax clearances and statutory payments correctly. That dependence makes effective oversight and disciplined record-keeping essential.
Presumption of innocence does not end the need for scrutiny
Sande and Sande Legal Practice are entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. The State must prove its case beyond the required legal standard, and the accused must have a proper opportunity to challenge the allegations.
But the presumption of innocence should not be confused with immunity from legitimate questions. Public confidence in the legal profession depends on transparency when allegations concern client money. The firm and its lawyers should be afforded the opportunity to explain their position, produce relevant records and respond to the prosecution’s claims.
At the time of publication, the supplied court report did not include a detailed response from Sande or the firm to the allegations. Their position should be sought and published, together with any material clarification that emerges during the proceedings.
The real test is accountability
The case will now proceed through the courts, where evidence—not reputation, social-media commentary or political pressure—must determine the outcome. If the allegations are disproved, the firm will deserve a clear correction of any false claims. If they are proven, the consequences should reflect the seriousness of mishandling money entrusted for a client’s property transaction.
Either way, the matter should not be dismissed as an ordinary commercial disagreement. Nearly US$34,000 is a substantial sum for any client. The public is entitled to know whether the money was properly received, protected, applied and accounted for.
The legal profession cannot demand trust from clients while treating unanswered questions about client funds as a private inconvenience. Trust is earned through records, explanations and professional conduct. In this case, all three are now under scrutiny.