SIBANDA & ANOR v OCHIENG & ORS 2013 (2) ZLR 326 (S)

Flynote

Legal practitioner — practice — requirement for three years' practical training before being entitled to practise on own account — person proposing to practise as an advocate — not exempt from requirement for appropriate training — "pupillage" arrangement effectively allowing newly qualified practitioner to practise on his own account not lawful

Headnote

The appellants were legal practitioners registered as such in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07]. Shortly after their admission they successfully applied to the Advocates Chambers Association, one of the respondents, and sought to practice at chambers as a "pupil advocates". Thereafter, and in terms of the prevailing system of pupillage, the applicants accepted briefs in their own names, charged their own fees and accounted to no one for their time. In due course it was realised by the association that its system of pupillage was contrary to the provisions of s 4 of the Legal Practitioners (General) Regulations 1999 (SI 137 of 1999), which prohibited legal practitioners from practicing on their own account until they have been employed for a period of three years by a legal practitioner of at least four years' standing. In an effort to redress the situation, the association revised the terms of the appellants' systems of pupillage so as to conform with the regulations. The appellants objected and sought relief from the High Court, which was refused. On appeal therefrom: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the fact the appellants had accepted briefs in their own names, charged their own fees and accounted to no one for their time was evidence that they were practicing as principals on their own account.

Held, further, that the provisions of s 4 of the Legal Practitioners (General Regulations) 1999 were mandatory and the appellants could not practice as legal practitioners on their own account except in compliance therewith. The letter of admission from Advocates Chambers could not legalise their unlawful conduct. The court a quo was therefore correct both in its assessment of the law and in its refusal to grant the order sought.

Judgment of Mtshiya J in Sibanda & Anor v Ochieng & Ors 2012 (2) ZLR 254 (H) upheld.