Prokureursorde van die Vrystaat v Britz (510/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 20 (16 September 2003)

Prokureursorde van die Vrystaat v Britz (510/2003) [2003] ZAFSHC 20 (16 September 2003)

The court found that the respondent, after being struck off the roll of attorneys, continued to act as a partner in the firm Britz & Coetzee, as evidenced by his signature on financial statements and certificates, and his sharing in the firm's profits. The respondent's explanation for signing as 'partner' was rejected as implausible. The only reasonable inference was that the respondent intentionally and unlawfully contravened the court order and section 83 of the Attorneys Act by practising as an attorney. The respondent was therefore found guilty of contempt of court. However, the court considered that direct imprisonment was not warranted and imposed a suspended sentence.

Citation
[2003] ZAFSHC 20
Parties
Applicant: Prokureursorde van die Vrystaat; Respondent: Pieter Jacobus Britz
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2003
Case Number
510/2003
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of contempt of court for breaching the order striking him off the roll of attorneys and contravening section 83 of the Attorneys Act.
Judges
G Van Coppenhagen, JP Malherbe
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Scrapping From Roll, Unauthorised Practice of Law, Attorneys Act Section 83
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Scrapping From Roll Unauthorised Practice of Law Attorneys Act Section 83

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prokureursorde van die Vrystaat

Applicant

Pieter Jacobus Britz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent contravened section 83(1) and (4) of the Attorneys Act, 53 of 1979 by performing reserved legal work after being struck off the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was in contempt of the court order striking his name from the roll of attorneys.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for the respondent's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, after being struck off the roll of attorneys, continued to act as a partner in the firm Britz & Coetzee, as evidenced by his signature on financial statements and certificates, and his sharing in the firm's profits. The respondent's explanation for signing as 'partner' was rejected as implausible. The only reasonable inference was that the respondent intentionally and unlawfully contravened the court order and section 83 of the Attorneys Act by practising as an attorney. The respondent was therefore found guilty of contempt of court. However, the court considered that direct imprisonment was not warranted and imposed a suspended sentence.

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of contempt of court for breaching the order striking him off the roll of attorneys and contravening section 83 of the Attorneys Act.

Orders

  • Respondent is found guilty of contempt of court.
  • Respondent is sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for five years on condition that he is not found guilty of contempt of court or contravention of section 83(1) or (4) of Act 53 of 1979 during the period of suspension.