The following is an edited extract from a complaint that I addressed to the Director of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces:

1. In terms of Section 50(1) of the Companies Act of 1973 (“Act”);

“Every company ... shall display its name on the outside of its registered office and every office or place in which its business is carried on, in a conspicuous position and in characters easily legible.”

2. Section 50(4) of the Act stipulates that;“If any company fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence.”

3. So, there you have it: Not only did the legislator find it important enough to prescribe to a company certain requirements regarding its name, but also to stipulate that non-compliance with the requirements should be punished as a criminal offence. And horrors! The legislator did not exempt attorneys from complying with the mentioned stipulations. I say, BUMMER!

4. SJ Botha Prokureurs no comply with section 50(1) of the Act and is therefore committing a criminal offence.

5. Now it is clear that the Bothas are not sure how they should be known. That is clear from the following: (a) The name outside the office of Botha and his entourage reads as follows: “S J BOTHA PROKUREUR ATTORNEY”. (b) On the Internet the name is “S J Botha Attorneys Inc”. (c) In the letterhead the name of the business is “PROKUREURS SJ BOTHA ATTORNEYS”, as is clear from the following depiction of a letterhead. None of the names comply with the requirements of the Act.

6. But, as is clear from what follows here below, that that is not where the criminal conduct in terms of the Act, of the Bothas ends. Now the reference to “S J Botha Attorneys Inc” not only points to a company, but also a specific type of company (used by many attorneys), the memorandum of which contains the provision referred to in section 53(b) of “Act”.

In terms of section 49(4) of the Act a company that contains the provision referred to in section 53(b) ‘shall include the word “Incorporated”, as the last word’ in its name. However, in terms of section 50(1)(c)(i) of the Act the abbreviation “Inc.” may be used for the word, ”Incorporated”. In that regard section 49(8) states the following: “If any company fails to comply with any provision of subsection ... (4) or in any way uses a name in contravention of such provision, it shall be guilty of an offence.”

And the Botha company does indeed so fail! And, in the words of the legislator, Botha and his cronies are “guilty of an offence.”

7. It is important that the Law Society ensures that its members do not commit criminal offences in terms of the Act. I must say that, given the fact that Botha Attorneys lists “Company Registrations” as one of their “Specialities”, I shudder at the thought that they are let loose on the unsuspecting public as “Company Registration Specialists”, when they cannot even remotely comply in their own promotional material and letterhead with the most basic requirements of The Companies Act.

So, please deal with the criminal conduct of the Bothas. After all you did previously insult me with your following words:

“The suggestion that the Law Society tolerates criminal conduct by attorneys is with respect, so absurd that it does not warrant any comment.”

So, come on Mr Director of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, show us your zero tolerance in this matter!