Cape Bar Council v Silinga (9988/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 171 (30 October 2013)

Cape Bar Council v Silinga (9988/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 171 (30 October 2013)

The court found that the respondent repeatedly breached the duties owed to the court and his clients by deceiving courts about his instructions, accepting instructions directly from clients, failing to appear in court, and performing the functions of an attorney without admission. The respondent's conduct was dishonest, unprofessional, and brought the administration of justice and the profession into disrepute. The court rejected the respondent's procedural objections, finding no merit in the claim that his rights under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act were infringed. Given the seriousness and recurrence of the misconduct, the absence of exceptional circumstances, and the need...

Citation
[2013] ZAWCHC 171
Parties
Applicant: Cape Bar Council; Respondent: Thembelani Silinga
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2013
Case Number
9988/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application to Strike Advocate From Roll
Outcome
The respondent's name is struck from the roll of advocates of this Court.
Judges
Schippers, Griesel
Legal Topics
Fit and Proper Person, Striking Off Roll, Referral Rule, Professional Misconduct, Dishonesty, Unprofessional Conduct
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Fit and Proper Person Striking Off Roll Referral Rule Professional Misconduct Dishonesty Unprofessional Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Bar Council

Applicant

Thembelani Silinga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application to Strike Advocate From Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to continue practising as an advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct warrants striking his name from the roll of advocates.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's rights under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act were infringed by the procedure adopted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent repeatedly breached the duties owed to the court and his clients by deceiving courts about his instructions, accepting instructions directly from clients, failing to appear in court, and performing the functions of an attorney without admission. The respondent's conduct was dishonest, unprofessional, and brought the administration of justice and the profession into disrepute. The court rejected the respondent's procedural objections, finding no merit in the claim that his rights under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act were infringed. Given the seriousness and recurrence of the misconduct, the absence of exceptional circumstances, and the need...

Court Disposition

The respondent's name is struck from the roll of advocates of this Court.

Orders

  • The respondent's name is struck from the roll of advocates of this Court.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.