Ho T/A Betxchange and Another v Minister of Police and Others (47483/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 362 (12 June 2014)

Ho T/A Betxchange and Another v Minister of Police and Others (47483/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 362 (12 June 2014)

The court found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent never obtained the LL.B degree required for admission as an advocate. The respondent failed to provide any certified copy of the degree and presented inconsistent dates regarding its conferral. Affidavits from UNISA officials confirmed that no LL.B degree was ever conferred upon the respondent. The respondent lied under oath in his applications and failed to contest the applicant's evidence. The conduct of the respondent demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to continue practising as an advocate. The application to review and discharge the interim interdict was dismissed as lacking merit. The...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 362
Parties
Applicant: Pretoria Society of Advocates; Respondent: Nkadimeng Matthew Manamela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Case Number
47483/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Main and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent's name is struck from the roll of advocates. The review application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
M J Teffo, R Tolmay
Legal Topics
Admission of Advocates, Fit and Proper Person, Striking Off Roll, Review of Interim Order
Civil Procedure Admission of Advocates Fit and Proper Person Striking Off Roll Review of Interim Order

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pretoria Society of Advocates

Applicant

Nkadimeng Matthew Manamela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Main and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent obtained an LL.B degree required for admission as an advocate.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent lied under oath regarding his qualifications.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to continue practising as an advocate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent never obtained the LL.B degree required for admission as an advocate. The respondent failed to provide any certified copy of the degree and presented inconsistent dates regarding its conferral. Affidavits from UNISA officials confirmed that no LL.B degree was ever conferred upon the respondent. The respondent lied under oath in his applications and failed to contest the applicant's evidence. The conduct of the respondent demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to continue practising as an advocate. The application to review and discharge the interim interdict was dismissed as lacking merit. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent's name is struck from the roll of advocates. The review application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and discharge the order granted by Bertelsmann J on 16 August 2013 is dismissed with costs.
  • The name of the respondent is struck from the roll of advocates.