SUSPENSION OF LAWYER

-

 

Wickramaratne v. Chandradeva - SLR - 232, Vol 2 of 1997 [1996] LKSC 7; (1997) 2 Sri LR 232 (20 September 1996)


WICKRAMARATNE   vs  CHANDRADEVA 

 

SUPREME COURT.

FERN ANDO, J., DHEERARATNE, J. AND WIJETUNGE, J.

S.C. RULE 2/93 D.

FEBRUARY 5 AND 28, 1996.

Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978, section 42(2) - Supreme Court Rules - Respondent has ceased to be an Attorney-at-Law - Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hold an inquiry - Notaries Ordinance, section 31(26) (a) - Transmission of duplicates of deeds to Registrar of Lands - Deceitful conduct - Rule absolute - Struck off the Roll proforma.

 One W complained to the Bar Association (BASL) on 30.08.91 that he entrusted the execution of a Deed of partition to the Respondent C on 16.3.91 and paid Rs 20001-. It was after much delay and inconvenience that he was able to obtain the original from C. He applied to the Land Registry for a certified copy for the purpose of obtaining a Bank loan and was informed on 30.2.91 that the Duplicate had not been sent to the Land Registry.

BASL fixed the matter for inquiry on 20.6.92, C by letter of 18.6.92 informed the BASL that the Deed had been misplaced and had recently been tendered to the Land Registry. When made a further application to the Land Registry for a certified copy and was informed on 28.8.92 that the Land Registry had not received the duplicate copy of the Deed.

The BASL in its report to the Supreme Court stated that the Respondent had committed acts of deceit and malpractice.

At the Rule inquiry a preliminary objection was taken, that the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed as the respondent had already been removed from the office of Attorney-at-Law in S.C. Rule 1/93 on 23. 11.94.

 

Held:

(1) Section 40(1) of the Judicature Act empowers the Supreme Court in accordance with rules for the time being in force to admit and enroll as Attorney-at-Law persons of good repute and of competent knowledge and ability. Under section 42(2) Court can suspend such a person from practice or remove him from office where such person has been found guilty of any deceit, malpractice, crime or offence. In the present case it became necessary to take proceedings against this Attorney-at-Law in respect of several complaints of deceit, malpractice, crime and offence committed as an Attorney-at-Law. The jurisdiction of the Court in that regard is referable to section 40(1) under which the Court admits and enrolls a person as an Attorney-at-Law. Irrespective of the result of each such inquiry, the Court's power to inquire into and determine every such matter continues unabated by reason of the Court having admitted and enrolled such person as an Attorney-at-Law, who at the time of admission was considered by the Court inter alia to be a person of good repute and the conduct being investigated by the Court is qua Attorney-at-Law.

 

(2) In the matter of readmission, a practitioner's conduct as an Attorney-at-Law which resulted in removal from the Roll is of absolute relevance. No doubt an Attorney-at-Law already removed from the Roll cannot be removed from such office several times over for other acts of misconduct warranting removal. But the Court is duty bound to investigate each such matter which has necessitated the issuance of a Rule, both in the interests of the legal profession and of the Attorney-at-Law himself, and simply because the Rule is made absolute in respect of one matter the Court does not lack jurisdiction in respect of the rest.

 

(3) As regards the nature of the order that the Court may make in respect of an Attorney-at-Law who has already been struck off the Roll - the Court may in such a situation make the Rule absolute and direct that his name be struck off the Roll proforma

 

Per Wijetunge, J.

 

"What is of prime importance is the determination of the Court as regards the transgression and the consequential decision as to whether the conduct complained of makes the attorney unfit to be on the Roll".

 

The respondent had deceived the complainant by stating that the duplicate of the Deed had been sent by her to the Land Registry when in fact she had not done so, and had persisted in such deceitful conduct. The Attorney-at-Law had also attempted to mislead the BASL by stating on 18.6.92 that the duplicate had recently been forwarded to the Land Registry.

 

In the matter of a Rule under section 42(2) of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978.


FULL JUDGEMENT CLICK AND READ


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more