Jasat v Natal Law Society (78/98) [2000] ZASCA 14; 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA); [2000] 2 All SA 310 (A) (28 March 2000)

Jasat v Natal Law Society (78/98) [2000] ZASCA 14; 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA); [2000] 2 All SA 310 (A) (28 March 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conduct in committing perjury and suborning another to do so during criminal proceedings constituted a serious breach of the standards expected of attorneys. The appellant persisted in his falsehoods over an extended period and only admitted the truth when compelled by the striking-off proceedings. The court found that such conduct demonstrates that the appellant is not a fit and proper person to continue practising as an attorney. The court further held that, given the gravity and duration of the misconduct, suspension would be inadequate and that striking off the roll is the only appropriate sanction. The appeal was accordingly...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 14
Parties
Appellant: Farouk Jasat; Respondent: Natal Law Society
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Case Number
78/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Attorney Off the Roll
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's petition to supplement the record upheld with costs, including the cost of the criminal record.
Judges
F H Grosskopf, Nienaber, Marais, Scott, Zulman
Legal Topics
Attorneys Act, Fit and Proper Person, Professional Misconduct, Perjury, Striking Off, Disciplinary Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attorneys Act Fit and Proper Person Professional Misconduct Perjury Striking Off Disciplinary Proceedings

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farouk Jasat

Appellant

Natal Law Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Attorney Off the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct in committing perjury and suborning another to do so renders him unfit to practise as an attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of striking off the roll, rather than suspension, is appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo misdirected itself in its approach to truthfulness as a requirement for attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conduct in committing perjury and suborning another to do so during criminal proceedings constituted a serious breach of the standards expected of attorneys. The appellant persisted in his falsehoods over an extended period and only admitted the truth when compelled by the striking-off proceedings. The court found that such conduct demonstrates that the appellant is not a fit and proper person to continue practising as an attorney. The court further held that, given the gravity and duration of the misconduct, suspension would be inadequate and that striking off the roll is the only appropriate sanction. The appeal was accordingly...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent's petition to supplement the record upheld with costs, including the cost of the criminal record.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondent's petition dated 24 June 1998 is upheld with costs, such costs to include the cost of the criminal record.