Joubert v South African Legal Practice Council (5220/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 374 (22 September 2023)

Joubert v South African Legal Practice Council (5220/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 374 (22 September 2023)

The court found that the Provincial Legal Practice Council is empowered under the Legal Practice Act to bring applications for the suspension or striking off of legal practitioners. The Rule 7 notice challenging authority was filed out of time and condonation should have been sought. The set down of the main application did not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1), and the respondent was not compelled to respond to the Rule 7 notice before setting the matter down. The interlocutory applications were viewed as attempts to delay the main application. Applying the raised threshold for granting leave to appeal, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 374
Parties
Applicant: Petrus Johannes Joubert; Respondent: South African Legal Practice Council; Applicant: South African Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Petrus Johannes Joubert; Respondent: Kramer Weihman Incorporated; Respondent: Johannes Andreas Kramer; Respondent: Jacob Lodewyk Weihman; Respondent: Jaqcues Nortje; Respondent: Cindy Lee Dickens; Respondent: Andrie Louis Visser; Respondent: Daniel Muller
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Case Number
5220/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Berry AJ
Legal Topics
Rule 7 Authority Challenge, Condonation, Interlocutory Application, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Rule 7 Authority Challenge Condonation Interlocutory Application Leave to Appeal Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Johannes Joubert

Applicant

South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

South African Legal Practice Council

Applicant

Petrus Johannes Joubert

Respondent

Kramer Weihman Incorporated

Respondent

Johannes Andreas Kramer

Respondent

Jacob Lodewyk Weihman

Respondent

Jaqcues Nortje

Respondent

Cindy Lee Dickens

Respondent

Andrie Louis Visser

Respondent

Daniel Muller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Provincial Legal Practice Council is empowered under the Legal Practice Act to bring an application to suspend or strike an attorney from the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the Rule 7 notice challenging authority was filed timeously and in compliance with procedural requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the set down of the main application constituted an irregular step under Rule 30(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Provincial Legal Practice Council is empowered under the Legal Practice Act to bring applications for the suspension or striking off of legal practitioners. The Rule 7 notice challenging authority was filed out of time and condonation should have been sought. The set down of the main application did not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30(1), and the respondent was not compelled to respond to the Rule 7 notice before setting the matter down. The interlocutory applications were viewed as attempts to delay the main application. Applying the raised threshold for granting leave to appeal, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.