The court made extensive obiter observations on the state of legal training and pupillage in Zimbabwe, expressing concern that junior practitioners are being permitted to practice in superior courts without adequate supervision and training. The judge reminisced about the more rigorous pupillage systems of the 1980s where senior practitioners carefully supervised and edited the work of junior practitioners. The court observed that voluntary assumption of the responsibility to practice in superior courts means that practitioners, regardless of experience level, must meet the standards expected in those courts, which are "not playgrounds or experimental courts." The court warned that in future cases, inexperience will not suffice as a valid excuse for conduct meriting costs debonis propriis, though it may be a mitigating factor. The judge emphasized that clients should not pay for work of no value, and suggested that in appropriate cases, legal practitioners ordered to pay debonis propriis costs should also be ordered not to recover fees from their clients where the work done is valueless. The court noted that Mr. Ndhlovu, as the principal, bore greater responsibility for the state of affairs but escaped sanction because Mr. Mamimine acted on his own initiative. There was philosophical reflection on the nature of legal practice as a fiduciary relationship and the balance between allowing practitioners to fearlessly represent clients and maintaining professional standards.