Maluleka and Another v Limpopo Society of Advocates (7113/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 14 (15 February 2024)

Maluleka and Another v Limpopo Society of Advocates (7113/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 14 (15 February 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to file an answering affidavit despite being given ample opportunity and was therefore in default. The facts alleged by the applicant regarding prior proceedings in the Pretoria High Court were irrelevant to the present application, as the parties and jurisdiction differed. The court held that there was no error in the granting of the order striking the applicant off the roll of advocates, and that the requirements of Rule 42(1)(c) were not met. The preliminary point of lis pendens raised by the respondent was dismissed, as there is no prohibition against pursuing both an appeal and a rescission application. The application for rescission was...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 14
Parties
Applicant: Tsundzuka Kevin Maluleke; Applicant: Law Society of the Northern Province; Respondent: Limpopo Society of Advocates
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Case Number
7113/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Order Striking Applicant Off the Roll of Advocates
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tsoka, Raulinga, Bresler
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Striking Off Roll, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Admission of Advocates Act, Legal Practice Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Striking Off Roll Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Admission of Advocates Act Legal Practice 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsundzuka Kevin Maluleke

Applicant

Law Society of the Northern Province

Applicant

Limpopo Society of Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Order Striking Applicant Off the Roll of Advocates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granted on 17 January 2023 striking the applicant off the roll of advocates was erroneously sought or granted under Rule 42(1)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file an answering affidavit despite being given ample opportunity and was therefore in default. The facts alleged by the applicant regarding prior proceedings in the Pretoria High Court were irrelevant to the present application, as the parties and jurisdiction differed. The court held that there was no error in the granting of the order striking the applicant off the roll of advocates, and that the requirements of Rule 42(1)(c) were not met. The preliminary point of lis pendens raised by the respondent was dismissed, as there is no prohibition against pursuing both an appeal and a rescission application. The application for rescission was...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order dated 17 January 2023 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.