Answer to Question #237662 in Law for Zimmy Bee

Question

South African Legal Practice Counsil v Shirinda

Answer 1

 This matter was before court as an application for the suspension of the Respondent from practice as a legal practitioner, alternatively, for the removal of his name from the roll of legal practitioners. The matter was heard on 17 November 2020. The Respondent was not in court for the hearing. Judgement was granted in favour of the Applicant for an order suspending the Respondent from practice as a legal practitioner for a period of one year. The Respondent now seeks reasons for the judgement. The Respondent was admitted and enrolled as an attorney of this Honourable Court on 13 August 1998. He has been practicing as a sole practitioner since 1 January 2004. It is the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent failed to lodge unqualified audit reports for the periods ending 28 February 2016 and 28 February 2017, in contravention of Rule 70.3 and Rule 70.4 of the Applicant’s old Rules. Further that the Respondent was not issued with Fidelity Fund certificates for the years commencing January 2017 and January 2018. Therefore, the Respondent was not entitled to practice for reward and did so in contravention of section 41(1) and 41(2) of the Attorney's Act (Act No. 53 of 1979).