• +264 813814414
  • info@consultfasz.com

Whereas the court found that the explanation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was vague, unsubstantiated, and unpersuasive, and that there is degree beyond which a litigant cannot be excused by his or her legal practitioner’s conduct, thereby refusing condonation in the circumstances, SCHIMMING-CHASE J stated the following in respect of duties of Legal Practitioners:


‘[17]       The failure, without any proper explanation (other than confusion because of the number of appearances that the applicants had to attend, and oversight), of the applicants’ instructed counsel to timeously engage in the proper research and . . .

Dear user, unfortunately you are not allowed to view this restricted content.
Please Login or Register in order to view.

error: Content is protected !!