Consumers’ Rights • Rosemary S bought a refrigerator which was defective. When she tried to negotiate for it to be repaired the seller would not accept liability. The LRF intervened, writing a letter of demand. Upon receipt of the letter the company’s management acted swiftly, fixed the refrigerator and our client was invited to collect it without incurring any further expenses. The case highlights the role of the LRF in protecting consumers from being taken advantage of bysuppliers of goods. Prior to the LRF’s intervention the seller had ignored the client’s demands. However, through a simple letter of demand, they immediately took action, realising that client had sought legal representation. Maintenance (Self-Actors) • The LRF assisted a woman who had been served with a court application in which the Applicant, who had been ordered to pay maintenance towards the upkeep of his son, had applied for a downward variation of maintenance on the basis of an alleged appeal against a decision of the same Magistrates’ Court. Reviewing the application revealed that the alleged appeal had not been issued by the High Court, it was just a draft and the applicant’s counsel intended to use the draft to misguide the court into believing that an appeal had actually been noted. The LRF lawyer in her pleadings raised the issue of the defective appeal as a point in limine and went further to include the fact that there were no changed circumstances warranting a downward variation of maintenance. The case involved a child in need of special medical attention as well as a special diet. The decision was granted in our client’s favour. The case shows how lawyers in private practice can take advantage of self-actors. In the process of drafting the court papers for the woman to use, the LRF was able to point out that the lawyer’s papers were defective. The LRF Lawyer took the client through the drafting of the notice of opposition and showed her how to respond to the applicant’s affidavit. As the LRF lawyer could not attend court on the day of the hearing of the case, she explained to the client how she should address the court and how to expand on the facts outlined in the notice of opposition. Through this empowerment the client successfully presented her case and she came out smiling when the judgment came in her favour, attributing her happiness to the LRF’s intervention. Conflict Resolution • A Headman approached our Beitbridge Legal Advice Centre (LAC) to seek advice on how to evict a farmer after he had been petitioned to do so by members of his village. The LAC advised him that he had no jurisdiction to evict the farmer and should establish independently why the villagers were calling for the eviction of this particular man. The Headman came back two weeks later to update and thank the paralegal for advising him. He said that had he not investigated he could have compromised his leadership role because the meeting he conducted with both parties revealed the following facts: The farmer had been allocated a larger portion by the lands office. The other farmers were hostile towards him as he had contested the June elections as an opposition candidate. He was sharing his water with all nearby farmers and contributing to the development of the area. He said he managed to help the farmers to resolve the political differences and also advised them that as a traditional leader he did not discriminate between his people on the basis of political affiliation. The advice given by the LRF assisted the headman in resolving conflict in his area of jurisdiction. Property Rights • EM’s husband was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2013 after he was convicted of raping their minor daughter. Before he was sentenced, the husband took the couple’s cattle and gave them to his uncle, as a way of depriving and punishing the client and his children as EM had testified as a state witness during the trial. The LRF assisted EM with court papers to recover the cattle, which were part of the couple’s matrimonial property. The matter has since been decided and the cattle were returned and client is now in a position to engage in farming using the cattle, ensuring that she is able to support her family even in the absence of the husband, who was a breadwinner. 22