Mabando v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (ADM4/13) [2014] ZANWHC 6 (7 March 2014)

Mabando v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (ADM4/13) [2014] ZANWHC 6 (7 March 2014)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving genuine, complete and permanent reformation required for re-admission as an attorney. He did not make full and frank disclosure of the conduct leading to his removal, nor did he accept responsibility for his transgressions or demonstrate genuine contrition. The short period since his removal, lack of supporting evidence, unpaid costs, and further complaints against him all militated against re-admission. The court found that re-admitting the applicant would harm the integrity and reputation of the profession. Accordingly, the application for re-admission was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZANWHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Kashan Ramokoka Mabando; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2014
Case Number
ADM 4/13
Procedural Posture
Re Admission Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for re-admission as an attorney dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hendricks, Gutta
Legal Topics
Attorney Re Admission, Fit and Proper Person, Professional Misconduct, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Attorney Re Admission Fit and Proper Person Professional Misconduct Onus of Proof

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kashan Ramokoka Mabando

Applicant

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Re Admission Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus of proving genuine, complete and permanent reformation to justify re-admission as an attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has made full and frank disclosure of the conduct leading to his removal from the roll.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has accepted responsibility for his transgressions and demonstrated contrition.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving genuine, complete and permanent reformation required for re-admission as an attorney. He did not make full and frank disclosure of the conduct leading to his removal, nor did he accept responsibility for his transgressions or demonstrate genuine contrition. The short period since his removal, lack of supporting evidence, unpaid costs, and further complaints against him all militated against re-admission. The court found that re-admitting the applicant would harm the integrity and reputation of the profession. Accordingly, the application for re-admission was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for re-admission as an attorney dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for re-admission as an attorney is dismissed with costs.