The Fiji Court of Appeal has ruled it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal by disbarred lawyer Haroon Ali Shah that he be re-admitted as a legal practitioner.
On June 22, 2012, Mr Shah was struck from the Roll of Legal Practitioners after complaints of professional misconduct had been brought against him and established by the Independent Legal Services Commission (ILSC).
In August 2020, he petitioned the Chief Justice to be re-admitted as a legal practitioner.
In his decision delivered on January 14, 2020, the Chief Justice Kamal Kumar struck out Mr Shah’s petition for restoration to the roll, that led to Mr Shah filing an appeal, seeking to have the Chief Justice’s decision set aside.
Madam Justice Karen Clark states in her November 30 ruling that Section 3(3) of the Court of Appeal Act 1949 provides “appeals lie to the court as of right from final judgments of the High Court given in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court”.
“Section 3(3) gives rise to a subsidiary question, whether the decision of the Chief Justice striking out Mr Shah’s petition for re-admission is ‘a final judgment of the High Court given in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court’.
“After a detailed analysis of the Legal Practitioners Act 2009 (the Act) and the Legal Practitioners (Admission) Rules 2014 (the Rules) I have come to the conclusion that no appeal lies to this court from decisions of the Chief Justice given pursuant to his statutory powers under Part 4 of the Act.
“Was the Chief Justice’s decision to strike out Mr Shah’s petition given in the exercise of the High Court’s original jurisdiction or was he exercising a distinct jurisdiction? To answer that question it is necessary to examine the nature of the powers conferred on the Chief Justice by the Act and the Rules.”
Madam Justice Clark states a refusal to re-admit a practitioner does not debar the practitioner from applying for re-admission at an appropriate future time.
“A lack of success on previous occasions should not be seen as pre-judging a future application.
“Whether or not the ability to re-apply is regarded as an adequate remedy in the absence of an ability to appeal is a matter for Parliament. It may be that in the course of the current review of the Legal Practitioners Act it is considered desirable to assess this aspect of the admissions framework.”
“That, of course is a matter for the legislature.”