Jansen v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (A523/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 634 (7 November 2019)

Jansen v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (A523/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 634 (7 November 2019)

The court found that although there was a delay in issuing the summons, the delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The appellant had acted diligently, consulting with the complainant and his supervisor, and there was no evidence of incompetence or neglect. The charge was properly amended and the appellant had a fair opportunity to respond. The responsibility for filing the record lay with the respondent, not the appellant, and there was no basis for awarding wasted costs against the appellant. Consequently, the guilty finding and sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Committee were set aside, and costs were awarded in favour of the appellant.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 634
Parties
Appellant: Willie Jansen; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Case Number
A523/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Disciplinary Finding and Sanction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; disciplinary finding and sanction set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
J T Leso, AC Basson
Legal Topics
Attorneys Act, Disciplinary Proceedings, Professional Conduct, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorneys Act Disciplinary Proceedings Professional Conduct Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willie Jansen

Appellant

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Disciplinary Finding and Sanction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was properly charged and found guilty of an offence not contained in the original complaint.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted a contravention of Rule 40.10 of the Rules of the Attorneys' Profession.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in issuing summons was unreasonable and amounted to unprofessional conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay in issuing the summons, the delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The appellant had acted diligently, consulting with the complainant and his supervisor, and there was no evidence of incompetence or neglect. The charge was properly amended and the appellant had a fair opportunity to respond. The responsibility for filing the record lay with the respondent, not the appellant, and there was no basis for awarding wasted costs against the appellant. Consequently, the guilty finding and sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Committee were set aside, and costs were awarded in favour of the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; disciplinary finding and sanction set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The finding and sanction of the Disciplinary Enquiry are set aside.