Tafa has last laugh over LSB
Mpho Mokwape | Sunday February 14, 2021 15:00
The Court also said since LSB did not seek to stay the orders of fidelity and practising certificate pending the finalisation of the appeal they were none issues as Tafa and his firm had complied fully. LSB had only sought the appeal on grounds that the Court should give clear guidance as to the powers of the Registrar who removed Tafa from the roll of practitioners and if the counter application at the High Court and the orders there given were appropriate since the Registrar had exercised his powers concerning the matter. Justice Isaac Lesetedi said the issues had become moot without practical significance and that the only thing remaining was for the LSB to receive guidance from Court going forward on the proper remit of its regulatory powers when dealing with a situation such as the present one where an audit report raises red flags.
“There is no doubt that the regulatory powers given by the Legal Practitioners’ Act (LPA) and Regulations under it have to be exercised meaningfully to attain the object of the Act in upholding the high moral and professional standard of the legal profession and to protect the public from errant and dishonest members of the profession,” he said. The judge noted that on one hand in doing so, the LSB has to treat the practitioner concerned in a fair and timely manner so as to minimise undue hardship where no acts of dishonesty or misconduct are alleged. He further explained that the appropriate steps would on the particular circumstances of each case emphasise that where there are issues especially with audit reports the first step was to call upon the author of the report to address those queries. “Both the LPA and the Accountants Act contain the necessary corrective measures in case of mischief. We therefore consider it unnecessary to decide on whether the Court was correct on the issue which is now moot between the parties,” he said.
Lastly, the judge said the question of issuance of a certificate in relation to Tafa was no longer an issue as said by both parties since the certificates were issued in accordance with the Court order and that Tafa has since been able to comply with relevant statutory requirements. He pointed that the happenings of 2019 had passed and that Tafa had been issued with a fidelity fund and practising certificate for the year 2020 and now awaits for 2021 practising certificate since they have also complied and been issued with fidelity fund certificate.
Meanwhile the tussle between the pair started in 2019 when the LSB rejected an application by Tafa for a fidelity fund certificate which is used by legal practitioners to apply for a practising certificate. The reasons for LSB was that there were irregularities with the firm’s books as confirmed by the audit report and its refusal led to Tafa and his firm being removed from the roll of legal practitioners by the Master and Registrar of the High Court. Then Tafa made a counter application at the High Court seeking to be given a fidelity certificate and subsequently a practising certificate. Subsequently, the Court then ruled that the refusal by the LSB to issue the applied fidelity certificate was unlawful and ordered that following issuance of such the Registrar restore Tafa’s name on the roll as per the law. The LSB on that account launched an appeal at the CoA seeking clarity on the powers exercised by the Registrar and if the High Court was right to overrule them.