Updated by Jeffrey S. Gutman The complaint frames the scope of the litigation.
The application to strike from the roll of advocates Mr Sibongile Mzinyathi Mzinyathi was dismissed, by the High Court, with costs, it is against the order of costs in which the GCB filed a counter-appeal. The GCB sought to prove that Jiba and Mrwebi were not fit and proper persons to remain admitted as advocates.
In Jasat it was held that a court must: Thirdly, inquire whether in all the circumstances the person in question is to be removed from the roll or whether an order of suspension from practice would suffice. The majority judgment found no misconduct, on the part of Jiba, was established by the GCB.
In that Mrwebi took the decision to withdraw the fraud and corruption charges against Mdluli before he consulted with Mzinyathi in terms of s 24 3 of the NPA Act and for this reason he was not a fit and proper person.
Mrwebi provided contradictory explanations of when and why he decided to withdraw the charges against Mdluli. The majority judgment found that, in respect of Mrwebi, the GCB established the alleged offending conduct.
The majority judgment further held that the High Court materially misdirected itself in striking Mrwebi from the roll, it failed to consider why suspension was not an appropriate sanction. The majority judgment held that the appropriate sanction is for Mrwebi to be suspended as an advocate for a period of 6 months from the date of 15 September The counter-appeal against the order of costs arose from the complaint against Mzinyathi.
For this reason the GCB interpreted this contradiction as misconduct and therefore Mzinyathi was not a fit and proper person.
The High Court dismissed the complaint against Mzinyathi with costs. The GCB appealed the costs order. The majority judgment could find no reason showing that the High Court did not exercise its discretion honestly and judiciously and for this reason it could not interfere with the findings of the High Court.
The Constitution provides that everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Advocate — misconduct — whether fit and proper person to practise as an advocate — appellants not advocates in private practice — employed by the National Prosecuting Authority — alleged to be not fit and proper persons to remain on the roll of advocates while acting as litigants — found not to have benefitted — appeal upheld.
For ease of reference and without disrespecting them, I shall refer to all parties by their surnames. The application against Mzinyathi was dismissed with costs to include the costs of two counsel.
Against the order of costs, the GCB filed a counter-appeal. The appeals are with the leave of the court a quo. The three applications were dealt with in one hearing and were therefore heard together in this court as the factual and legal background was similar.
The GCB has the authority to apply to court for suspension of its members as advocates from practice and the removal of their names from the roll of advocates in terms of s 7 1 d of the Act. And also sourced information contained in the affidavits in the various cases and from the office of the NPA.
The gist of the information gathered sought to prove that the appellants Jiba and Mrwebi were not fit and proper persons to remain admitted as advocates.
Legal Framework  I now turn to deal with the relevant legal principles to be considered before an advocate can be struck from the roll. The application is brought in terms of s 7 1 of the Act — and it reads as follows: This involves a weighing up of the conduct complained of against the conduct expected of an attorney and, to this extent, is a value judgment.
And third, the court must inquire whether in all the circumstances the person in question is to be removed from the roll of attorneys or whether an order of suspension from practice would suffice.Strategic Legal Writing: Preparing Persuasive Documents We work with lawyer-clients to produce Applications for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Factums that stand out from the rest.
Our lawyers have extensive experience in a diverse range of practice areas and can provide you with the legal answers you need. Upon successful completion of this Writing Persuasive Document course from Australian Institute of Management Education and Training you'll be able to: Leverage techniques for expressing a creative concept and checking that supporting information is complete before confirming schedule and budgetary requirements for creating copy.
This chapter's focus is how to use persuasive legal writing when crafting a brief to the Texas Supreme Court. The author examines a variety of have titles like briefing attorney, staff attorney, research attorney, or law clerk, which will be WRITING A PERSUASIVE SUPREME COURT BRIEF.
Writing a Persuasive Supreme Court Brief Kevin Dubose Alexander, Dubose, Jones & Townsend LLP have titles like briefing attorney, staff attorney, research attorney, or law clerk, which will be includes the documents required by the Rules (judgment, jury charge, etc.), but.
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL. FROM The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal. DATE 10 July Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Communication, in General.
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. — George Bernard Shaw. If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless.