Natural justice principles require fair hearing rights, including cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings involving serious allegations.

[22] We had also perused the Grounds of Judgment of the learned High COURT Judge. Although she had noted, at para 27(vii) of her Grounds of Judgment, that one of the complaints brought before her was that the DC had "Failed to allow the Appellant to cross examine the Respondent", however, she had not directly addressed her mind on that complaint satisfactorily or at all. We would venture to surmise that para 57 of her Grounds of Judgment would encapsulate her findings on that complaint. We reproduce below, that relevant para 57 like so:

"The Appellant was given the opportunity of participating at the hearing and he was given the opportunity to present his case and to exculpate himself and to prove his assertions."

[23] From a perusal of her Grounds of Judgment, it was apparent to us that the learned High COURT Judge did not give much consideration to the issue on cross-examination it deserved. We found that her conclusion that had found expression in para 57 of her Grounds of Judgment could not be supported. No decision made as a result of non-compliance by the tribunal of the rules of natural justice, in this case a denial of cross-examination to the adverse party can possibly withstand curial scrutiny.

[24] It was quite apparent to us that the learned High COURT Judge had not directed her mind sufficiently on the matter of cross-examination. The learned High COURT Judge did not, with respect, address the central issue of the alleged denial of cross-examination. With no cross-examination having been afforded to him, the Appellant had been severely handicapped in presenting his case.

[25] As such, therefore, we were of the view that her non-direction had amounted to a misdirection.

[26] The Appellant had been unfairly treated and substantial miscarriage of justice had been occasioned to him. The hearing at the DC had been vitiated for non-compliance. Such an injustice occasioned to the Appellant must necessarily vitiate the 'justice' given in favour of the Respondent. With respect, we agreed with learned counsel for the Appellant that there was a serious misdirection in law by both the DC and the learned High COURT Judge. Any decision made as a result of such proceeding cannot be allowed to stand. It must therefore be set aside.

Rule 24 And The Failure Of The DC To Record Notes Of Proceedings At The Hearing

[27] One of the issues that was raised early on by learned counsel for the Appellant in the hearing of this appeal had been the lack of a proper record of the proceedings at the DC having been made. We could understand the great significance of that issue. The DC had made its crucial findings that were adverse against the Appellant for a charge premised upon an attack on his honesty in the manner in which he had allegedly managed the Respondent's money.

[28]Rule 24 of Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Investigating Tribunal And Disciplinary Committee) Rules 1994 provides as follow:

"24 Record of proceedings before Disciplinary Committee The Disciplinary Committee shall make a record of all the evidence given before it."

[29] Strict compliance of Rule 24 is required. The DC is not a final arbiter of the dispute created by the lodging of the complaint. It investigates the allegation by hearing witnesses acquainted with the complaint lodged and at the end of that exercise it recommends actions to be taken against the errant advocate and solicitor, depending on the outcome of the investigation. Whatever its decision at the end of the investigation upon which its recommendations to the DB are premised, the DC must act on the evidence given by the various witnesses. Therefore, it is imperative that it keeps a proper record of what had transpi