SUMMARY: Judicial Code of Conduct & Professional Negligence
1. Judicial Code of Conduct (Judicial [Code of Conduct]
Act No. 13 of 1999)
Scope of Application
Applies to:
Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice
Judges, Magistrates
Registrars
Justices of a Court
Any person exercising judicial power
Adjudicative Responsibilities
Judicial officers must:
1. Uphold independence, integrity & impartiality
[Section 3]
2. Avoid bias or prejudice
No discrimination on race, tribe, sex, origin, marital status, political opinion, or creed.
[Section 4]
3. Avoid external influences
Must not be influenced by personal, political, family, or social pressures.
[Section 5]
4. Avoid misuse of office
Should not use office to benefit self or relations.
[Section 5(3)]
5. Recusal in conflicted cases
Must not adjudicate if there is a personal/legal interest, or if impartiality is reasonably
questioned.
Grounds include:
o Prior involvement as a lawyer
o Relationship with a party, lawyer, or witness
o Personal bias or pecuniary interest
[Section 6]
Extra-Judicial Activities
Judges must not engage in:
1
Activities that create conflicts with judicial duties
Actions that bring judiciary into disrepute
[Section 11]
Financial Dealings & Gifts
Judges must not:
Solicit or accept bribes
Use privileged information for gain
[Section 14]
Gifts are generally prohibited unless:
From relatives/friends for personal occasions
From public events, educational institutions, etc.
Loans or scholarships under general public terms
[Section 15]
Prohibited Activities
Legal Practice: Not allowed unless giving free advice to family.
Political Activity: Cannot hold party office, make speeches, attend rallies, or donate.
[Section 18]
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
Article 143 & 144 of the Constitution of Zambia: Provide grounds and procedures
for removal of a judicial officer.
2. Professional Negligence of Legal Practitioners
Core Legal Duty
Lawyers must act with the skill, diligence, and care of a "reasonably competent practitioner."
Failure can lead to liability in both negligence and breach of contract.
Key Case Law
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
2
Introduced the “neighbour principle” in tort law.
Establishes duty of care: One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
likely to injure a neighbour (someone foreseeably affected).
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
Liability for negligent misstatements even in absence of a contract.
Professionals who give advice may be liable if their advice is relied upon and causes
loss.
Common Examples of Professional Negligence
1. Failing to act before limitation periods expire
2. Ignoring court rules, leading to case dismissal
3. Mishandling matters taken over from other lawyers
4. Giving informal legal advice at social events (negligent misstatements)
5. Acting on verbal instructions without confirmation
6. Group representation without verifying authority
7. Signing consent judgments/orders without client approval
8. Failing to conduct proper title searches
9. Releasing purchase money prematurely
10. Poor supervision of junior counsel/paralegals
Conclusion
Both judicial officers and legal practitioners in Zambia are held to high ethical standards. The
Judicial Code of Conduct emphasizes impartiality and avoidance of conflicts, while legal
practitioners must guard against negligence through diligence, competence, and clear client
communication. Relevant case law like Donoghue v Stevenson and Hedley Byrne v Heller
form the basis for professional liability in tort and contract.
1. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
House of Lords
Facts:
Mrs. Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend.
Her friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer made by Mr. Stevenson, the
manufacturer.
The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle so the contents couldn't be seen.
After consuming some, the rest of the bottle was poured out and it allegedly contained
a decomposed snail.
3
As a result, Mrs. Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastroenteritis.
She sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for negligence — although there was no
contract between her and the manufacturer.
Legal Issue:
Could a manufacturer owe a duty of care to a consumer with whom he had no contractual
relationship?
Rationale (Lord Atkin's “Neighbour Principle”):
Lord Atkin laid down the “neighbour principle”, stating:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee
would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
A neighbour in law is someone:
“…so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in
contemplation as being so affected.”
The Court held that even though there was no contract, a duty of care could still
arise in tort (law of negligence).
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that:
✅ A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product.
✅ Stevenson had a legal obligation to ensure the ginger beer was safe.
✅ Mrs. Donoghue was entitled to pursue a claim in negligence.
This case created the modern law of negligence and established that liability in tort can
exist even in the absence of a contract.
Significance:
Landmark case that founded the modern doctrine of duty of care.
Opened the way for consumers to sue manufacturers directly.
Basis for much of professional negligence law, including for lawyers and doctors.
4
2. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964]
AC 465
House of Lords
Facts:
Hedley Byrne, an advertising agency, wanted to check the financial reliability of a
client called Easipower Ltd before extending credit.
They asked Heller & Partners, Easipower’s bankers, for a reference.
Heller provided a favourable reference, stating Easipower was “considered good for
ordinary business engagements” — but added a disclaimer saying it was “without
responsibility.”
Hedley Byrne relied on the advice and extended credit — but Easipower collapsed,
and Hedley Byrne lost money.
Legal Issue:
Can a party be liable for negligent misstatements that cause financial loss, even if there is
no contract?
Rationale:
The House of Lords recognized that a duty of care could arise where:
o A party possesses special skill or knowledge,
o That party voluntarily assumes responsibility for giving advice,
o And the other party relies on the advice to their detriment.
However, in this case, the disclaimer (“without responsibility”) meant no duty of
care was assumed.
Judgment:
✅ The Court held that negligent misstatements can give rise to liability in tort, separate
from contract.
❌ But in this case, Heller was not liable, because the disclaimer excluded responsibility.
Significance:
5
This case established the principle of liability for negligent misstatements.
Extended the duty of care to pure economic loss in tort.
Crucial for professional negligence, especially where advice is given (lawyers,
bankers, accountants, etc.).
🧠 How These Cases Apply to Legal Ethics and Negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson supports the idea that lawyers owe a duty of care to clients
because their professional acts can foreseeably harm the client.
Hedley Byrne v Heller shows that lawyers and professionals can be liable for bad
advice — even if not in a contractual relationship — if responsibility is assumed and
the client relies on it.
This forms part of the foundation of professional negligence law in Zambia and other
common law jurisdictions.
