Answer to Question #238535 in English for Mpendulo

Question

Read the following case that can be found under Additional Resources > Prescribed
reading.
South African Legal Practice Council v Shirinda [2021] ZAGPPHC 144 (3 February
2021)
Now summarise the case in the prescribed manner.

Answer 1

This case was before the court as an application for the Respondent's license to practice law to be suspended, or for his name to be removed from the list of legal practitioners. On November 17, 2020, the case was heard. The Respondent was not present in court at the time of the hearing. The Applicant was given judgment for an order prohibiting the Respondent from practicing law for a year. The Respondent is now requesting explanations for the decision. On August 13, 1998, the Respondent was admitted and enrolled as an attorney of this Honorable Court. Since January 1, 2004, he has worked as a lone practitioner. The Applicant claims that the Respondent failed to file unqualified audit reports for the periods ending February 28, 2016 and February 28, 2017, in violation of the Applicant's old Rules Rule 70.3 and Rule 70.4. Furthermore, no Fidelity Fund certificates were given to the Respondent for the years beginning January 2017 and January 2018. As a result, the Respondent was not authorized to practice for a fee and did so in violation of Attorneys Act sections 41(1) and 41(2). (Act No. 53 of 1979). The Respondent seeks that the Applicant's late answering affidavit be refused and the case be dismissed solely on the basis of that fact. This motion was refused because the answering affidavit did not raise any new problems and there is an acceptable and reasonable justification for the late filing. More crucially, if the answering affidavit is admitted, the Respondent cannot establish that he will be prejudiced. As a result, the point in limine was rejected.