STANDARD OF PAPER The standard of the paper was assessed as average. It was not a difficult paper. It however examined most of the learning outcomes of the syllabus. The relevant verbs used included assess, discuss and contrast. Identify, state and describe were used in three sub-questions with total marks of fifteen (15) out of one hundred (100). The paper featured questions from seven (7) out of the nine (9) sections of the syllabus representing eighty (80) percent of the syllabus weighting. Sections C and H representing twenty (20) percent of the syllabus weighting were not explicitly featured but strands of some questions required knowledge of practice management and reporting to fully answer them.

GENERAL PERFORMANCE The performance of candidates in the paper was nothing to write home about. Many candidates showed clearly that they were not ready for the paper. They did not display the in-depth knowledge and maturity required at level three of the professional examinations. Many candidates did not know the difference between a bad debt which should be written off and a doubtful debt for which a provision should be made. Similarly, many candidates could not distinguish between subsequent events and subsequent events review. Common faults of candidates included not obtaining understanding of the requirements of the questions before making attempts at answering the question. This resulted in deviations and wrong answers. Secondly, many candidates resorted to the use of lengthy preamble to their answers which did not contain any relevant points to deserve marks. Some candidates also wrote across the full length of the answer sheets including the spaces reserved for use by the examiners and moderators. However, candidates should be commended for the display of good handwriting and numbering of their points which made reading of scripts easy for the examiners.