S v MARTIN 1988 (2) ZLR 1 (SC)

Flynote

Appeal — legal practitioner renouncing agency after appeal set down — appellant not entitled to appear in person — must obtain certificate from Judge of Supreme Court.

Legal practitioner — financial dealings with clients — impropriety of disclosing such dealings to Court — renunciation of agency after appeal noted — duty to advise client of rights of unrepresented appellant.

Headnote

If a legal practitioner is not put in funds after having been engaged to appear on behalf of a client, it is highly undesirable, if not unethical, for him to disclose this fact to the Court. Instead, the practitioner must decide whether or not to continue to act for the client. That decision should be made well before the matter is to be heard, so as to give the client a chance to make other arrangements. If the practitioner decides not to continue, he must, in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, renounce his agency in terms of Rule 10(3) of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe Rules. He should also advise his client that, even though the matter has been set down for hearing, an unrepresented appellant has no automatic right of audience and must obtain a certificate from a judge of the Supreme Court before being entitled to prosecute an appeal in person.