Claassen and Another v Free State Law Society and Others (5940/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 43 (12 April 2018)

Claassen and Another v Free State Law Society and Others (5940/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 43 (12 April 2018)

The application was dismissed because it was premature and impractical. The Law Society is entitled to conduct a thorough investigation and disciplinary process before bringing any application for suspension or striking off. There was no evidence that the Society was neglecting its duties, and compelling it to act within a fixed period would undermine its statutory role and the rights of the attorney concerned. The relief sought would not be effective, as the Society could simply comply procedurally without being ready to present sufficient facts to the Court. The applicants failed to demonstrate grounds for urgent intervention.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 43
Parties
Applicant: A C Claassen; Applicant: Joluza Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Free State Law Society; Respondent: F J Senekal; Respondent: Matsepes Incorporated
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2018
Case Number
5940/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs for the First Respondent on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
P J Loubser
Legal Topics
Attorney Misconduct, Law Society Duties, Disciplinary Proceedings, Trust Account Irregularities
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorney Misconduct Law Society Duties Disciplinary Proceedings Trust Account Irregularities

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A C Claassen

Applicant

Joluza Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Free State Law Society

Respondent

F J Senekal

Respondent

Matsepes Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Law Society should be compelled to urgently apply for the suspension of an attorney and take control of a trust account.
  2. 2 Whether the application is premature given ongoing investigations by the Law Society.
  3. 3 Whether the Law Society is neglecting its duties in relation to complaints against the attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was premature and impractical. The Law Society is entitled to conduct a thorough investigation and disciplinary process before bringing any application for suspension or striking off. There was no evidence that the Society was neglecting its duties, and compelling it to act within a fixed period would undermine its statutory role and the rights of the attorney concerned. The relief sought would not be effective, as the Society could simply comply procedurally without being ready to present sufficient facts to the Court. The applicants failed to demonstrate grounds for urgent intervention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs for the First Respondent on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs for the First Respondent on an attorney and client scale, including costs incurred in the postponements on 17 November 2017 and 14 December 2017.
  • No order as to costs is made in relation to the Second and Third Respondents.