Gqomo v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (688/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 81 (4 August 2020)

Gqomo v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (688/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 81 (4 August 2020)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that he is a fit and proper person to be readmitted as an attorney. His conduct leading to his removal involved persistent and widespread dishonesty and misappropriation of client funds. Despite the passage of twenty years, the applicant did not demonstrate genuine, complete and permanent reformation. He misled the court regarding payment of the fine and his conduct after being interdicted, including holding himself out as an attorney on multiple occasions. The affidavits provided in support of his character were insufficient to outweigh the evidence of ongoing dishonesty and lack of candour. The applicant's failure to make full and...

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 81
Parties
Applicant: Mzingaye Lewinthol Gqomo; Respondent: The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Case Number
688/2016
Procedural Posture
Readmission Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for readmission as an attorney dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Bloem, Smith
Legal Topics
Attorney Readmission, Fit and Proper Person, Misappropriation of Funds, Professional Misconduct, Onus of Proof, Dishonesty
Civil Procedure Attorney Readmission Fit and Proper Person Misappropriation of Funds Professional Misconduct Onus of Proof Dishonesty

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzingaye Lewinthol Gqomo

Applicant

The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Readmission Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to prove he is a fit and proper person to be readmitted as an attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated genuine, complete and permanent reformation of character.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has made full and frank disclosure of all material facts relevant to his readmission.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that he is a fit and proper person to be readmitted as an attorney. His conduct leading to his removal involved persistent and widespread dishonesty and misappropriation of client funds. Despite the passage of twenty years, the applicant did not demonstrate genuine, complete and permanent reformation. He misled the court regarding payment of the fine and his conduct after being interdicted, including holding himself out as an attorney on multiple occasions. The affidavits provided in support of his character were insufficient to outweigh the evidence of ongoing dishonesty and lack of candour. The applicant's failure to make full and...

Court Disposition

Application for readmission as an attorney dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client, such costs to include the costs previously reserved.