Macheka v Legal Practice Council Free State (4057/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 85 (22 March 2024)

Macheka v Legal Practice Council Free State (4057/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 85 (22 March 2024)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving he is fit and proper to be readmitted as an attorney. He did not engage with the specific complaints that led to his removal, nor did he demonstrate genuine, complete and permanent reformation. His continued disregard for the law, including practicing without consent after being struck off and violating section 33(4) of the Legal Practice Act, further undermines his case. Contrition and promises to repay misappropriated funds are insufficient. The court finds that the applicant has not made out a case for readmission and remains unfit to practice as an attorney.

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 85
Parties
Applicant: Fusi Stephen Macheka; Respondent: Legal Practice Council Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
4057/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Readmission as Attorney After Being Struck Off
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Molitsoane, Jordaan
Legal Topics
Readmission of Attorneys, Fit and Proper Person, Misappropriation of Trust Funds, Professional Ethics, Attorneys Act, Legal Practitioners Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Readmission of Attorneys Fit and Proper Person Misappropriation of Trust Funds Professional Ethics Attorneys Act Legal Practitioners Act

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fusi Stephen Macheka

Applicant

Legal Practice Council Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Readmission as Attorney After Being Struck Off

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case for his readmission as a legal practitioner.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to prove he is a fit and proper person to be readmitted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct after being struck off demonstrates genuine, complete and permanent reformation.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving he is fit and proper to be readmitted as an attorney. He did not engage with the specific complaints that led to his removal, nor did he demonstrate genuine, complete and permanent reformation. His continued disregard for the law, including practicing without consent after being struck off and violating section 33(4) of the Legal Practice Act, further undermines his case. Contrition and promises to repay misappropriated funds are insufficient. The court finds that the applicant has not made out a case for readmission and remains unfit to practice as an attorney.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.