Fw: Davis Ndi Edgar at Club Mustang Sally Saturday-1st Nov

[DAVIS NJOBVU]

> Mabwana ndi Madonna
>
>
> Ndili okondwa zedi pokudziwitsani kuti kuli chidansi cha
> fumbi ku Mustang Sally(Naperi Blantyre) pa chiweru,1st November2008 nthawi ya
> 8 kaloko madzulo.
>
> Lots of you have been asking when are we performing
> (Dzubwera mochedywa)in Blantyre so this your chance.Charges
> are only K1000 per person.Also in attendance will be that
> never say die young man, Giddes Chalamanda.Come and support
> us.
>
> There will be other performances with Giddess Chalamanda
> and that fantastic Peter Mawanga(Amakhala Ku Blantyre) in
> Zomba next week as follows:
>
> Friday-7th November 8.00pm-Pa Bakery (kwa Bwana
> Kaliwo)-K400
>
> Saturday-8th November 2.00pm Great Hall- K500 only
>
> Saturday-8th November 8.00pm braii at Mulunguzi Cottage-
> K500
>
> Do i hear somebody suggesting that the Mulunguzi cottage
> braii be free for Chancellor college girls?
>
> You have been warmed!
>
>
>
> C u there.
>
>
> Davis
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Chipo Kazoka
> <chi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > From: Chipo Kazoka <chi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > Subject: FW: Agenda for General Meeting on 30 October
> 2008
> > To: "MLS Law Society"
> <malawi_l...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 2:07 AM
> > Fellow members, As regards the question of applying
> > sanctions to non-attendance at meetings, I have
> thought
> > further on this and my positions has evolved thus: 1.
> I
> > think the whole idea of applying sanctions should be
> > rejected in total. 2. Members of the Society join it
> not out
> > of choice, but because joining the Society is the only
> > access to obtaining a licence to practice. As such the
> > Society has the power of an absolute monopoly over the
> lives
> > of every licenced lawyer. 3. Any attempt to bargain
> with an
> > absolute monolpoy would inevitably result in a net
> loss on
> > the part of the other party to the bargain. 4. The
> only
> > sensible rationale for giving absolute monoply status
> to the
> > Society is for the ultimate protection of the public
> from
> > being harmed by lawyers' misconduct. 5. As such no
> > lawyer can escape having their conduct being measured
> > against the rule book of the Society as regards their
> > dealings with their clients. This is the essence of
> > self-regulation and this is where we should confine
> the
> > absolute monoply power of the Society. 6. However,
> when the
> > Society, as an absolute monoply, begins to use that
> status
> > against its own members for its own (the
> Society's)
> > benefit, then problems set in. 7. Let us remember that
> > membership of the Society, like any other professional
> body,
> > is earned. One has to qualify for it by passing the
> relevant
> > professional exams. Any interference with the
> enjoyment of
> > such an earned membership status can only be justified
> on
> > the basis of the prevention of professional misconduct
> (and
> > not because such members have chosen not to attend the
> > Society's meetings-however flimsy their reasons
> may be)
> > 8. Related to 7 above and by way of analogy, I would
> be
> > interested to know of how many members of CIMA, ACCA
> or ICSA
> > (to give examples) who have been sanctioned by their
> > professional bodies because they did not attend
> meetings of
> > these bodies. I think we will be setting a precedent
> (and a
> > riduculous one, I must add) if we attempt to do so for
> our
> > members. 9. Lawyers, are by their very nature the
> amongst
> > the busiest breed of professionals on the face of the
> earth-
> > and this is as it should be. As uch there will always
> be
> > some serial non-attendees. How many meetings are these
> > expected to miss before even their busy schedules get
> to be
> > deemed as unexcusable? 10. Puting in place rules for
> > sanctioning non-attendance will generate unecessary
> > administration that must be maintained by a thinly
> resourced
> > Society. Remember, such sanctions must be consistently
> > applied to everyone at all times for the system to
> have any
> > fairness to it. Does the Society have the capacity to
> do
> > this or rather is this the way the Society's thin
> > resources should be applied? I don't think so. 11.
> How
> > will the application of these sanctions ultimately
> protect
> > the public? How will honest lawyers who go about doing
> the
> > right thing feel (when sanctioned for non-attendance)
> about
> > their Society when they see another member whom they
> know to
> > have grossly misconducted himself going about freely
> without
> > having faced sanctions for their misconduct? 11. In
> the face
> > of the crisis of the confidence that the Society is
> facing,
> > I think it could better direct its resources at
> ensuring the
> > maintenance of public confidence in the legal
> profession.
> > 12. The Society should look to other means of
> incentivising
> > its members to attend its meetings. Sanctioning them
> for
> > failure to do so is simply not an option. For these
> reasons,
> > could you please note my opposition to the proposal to
> put
> > in place sanctions for non-attendance. Thanks, Chipo
>
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:01:25 -0700From:
> > rkap...@yahoo.comSubject: Re: Agenda for General
> Meeting on
> > 30 October 2008To: malawi_l...@googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. President,
> >
> > This is a reminder of my take on this issue as the
> Society
> > discusses this matter on Thursday. My position remains
> as
> > below.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Redson.--- On Thu, 10/2/08, Redson Kapindu
> > <rkap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > From: Redson Kapindu
> <rkap...@yahoo.com>Subject: Re:
> > Concept paper by Yambani.docTo:
> > malawi_l...@googlegroups.comDate: Thursday,
> October 2,
> > 2008, 2:24 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. President,
> >
> > As I will obviously be in no position to attend the
> > meeting, I implore you Mr. President to regard this as
> my
> > small contribution to this evening’s debate:
> > 1. I wish to thank Yambani and the entire
> sub-committee
> > for taking their time to come up with these proposed
> rules.
> > 2. It is common knowledge that the problem of
> > non-attendance at Law Society Meetings has grown over
> the
> > years; and there is need for some radical action in
> order to
> > ensure a paradigm shift.
> > 3. I may just observe in passing that the proposed
> rules
> > herein would appear to implicate some human rights
> like
> > freedom of association. However, I think this would
> pass the
> > limitations test.
> > 4. It sounds to me though that the requirement for
> > attendance is unduly stringent. I think it needs a
> proviso
> > to the effect that it should suffice if a member shows
> > reasonable cause for failure to attend. The categories
> of
> > reasonable causes cannot be closed, and the power to
> > determine whether a reason proffered for
> non-attendance is
> > satisfactory or not should be vested in the Executive.
>
> > 5. With the greatest respect that we have for our
> Senior
> > Counsel, I do not agree that seniority should be a
> ground
> > for exemption as it were. If anything, I think we need
> > Senior Counsel to attend these meetings regularly so
> that
> > they can impart their wisdom to the young. They should
> lead
> > by example. I would not support that aspect of the
> proposed
> > rules.
> > 6. I do not think it will be ethical to say that
> those
> > that are unable to attend due to physical disability
> or due
> > to medical conditions should then be required to pay a
> fee
> > in lieu of attendance. That just does not ring well
> for me.
> > In addition, there is an inherent danger in the
> proposed
> > prescription of medical conditions that warrant an
> excuse
> > for non-attendance. To me, it would be safer to rely
> on a
> > doctor’s recommendation. Among other things, some
> medical
> > conditions not reasonably foreseeable would take us by
> > surprise and require us to amend the rules to cover
> specific
> > cases, and that will not be in order.
> > 7. Thus, in light of points 4 & 6 above, in my
> view,
> > a person who shows reasonable cause for failure to
> attend
> > need not be required to pay any excuse fee at all.
> Perhaps
> > we might discuss the idea (merits and demerits; etc)
> of a
> > penalty fee where a member does not show reasonable
> cause
> > for failure to attend.
> > 8. The proposed rules seem silent on the position
> of the
> > Lilongwe Chapter; and the issue of Mzuzu based lawyers
> also
> > needs to be properly canvassed.
> > 9. On a lighter note, I trust that the Society is
> > practically prepared to host monthly meetings with
> > attendance of over 200 lawyers at one go. Indeed, I
> hope we
> > are ready for that this evening! It would be a good
> scene to
> > see such a good gathering of lawyers.
> > Regards,
> > Redson.--- On Thu, 10/2/08, Tembenu, Masumbu and
> Company
> > <tem...@malawi.net> wrote:
> > From: Tembenu, Masumbu and Company
> > <tem...@malawi.net>Subject: Concept paper by
> > Yambani.docTo: malawi_l...@googlegroups.comDate:
> > Thursday, October 2, 2008, 1:33 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Item 3.1 of the Minutes that have been circulated,
> there is
> > the issue of sanctions for non-attendance.
> >
> > Yambani and his Sub-Committee have produced the
> attached
> > Concept Paper which will be discussed this evening. We
> need
> > your comments so please attend. Otherwise, resolutions
> may
> > be passed which may adversely affect you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Samuel Tembenu
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > Win an Xbox 360 or £200 Top Shop Vouchers
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454062/direct/01/
> >