Mayekiso v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (1868/2015) [2017] ZAECMHC 51 (28 November 2017)

Mayekiso v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope (1868/2015) [2017] ZAECMHC 51 (28 November 2017)

The court found that the applicant had misappropriated trust monies and failed to account faithfully, accurately, and timeously to both the complainant and the Law Society. The alternative remedy of referral to a disciplinary committee was deemed inadequate to protect public confidence in the legal profession and the justice system. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, as the respondent established a clear right, injury actually committed, and no adequate alternative remedy. The court held that section 72 of the Attorneys Act permitted the application for an interdict without the completion of disciplinary proceedings and that the applicant was afforded a fair hearing....

Citation
[2017] ZAECMHC 51
Parties
Applicant: Ronald Mangena Mayekiso; Respondent: The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Case Number
1868/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interdict and Related Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
J W Eksteen, D Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Interdict Requirements, Attorneys Act Section 72, Disciplinary Proceedings, Fit and Proper Person, Alternative Remedy, Natural Justice
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interdict Requirements Attorneys Act Section 72 Disciplinary Proceedings Fit and Proper Person Alternative Remedy Natural Justice

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

Parties

Ronald Mangena Mayekiso

Applicant

The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interdict and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may find the requirements for granting an interdict were not satisfied.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing or the rules of natural justice were violated by not referring the matter to a formal disciplinary hearing.
  3. 3 Whether reliance on section 72 of the Attorneys Act was misplaced in the context of an interdict rather than a suspension or striking off application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had misappropriated trust monies and failed to account faithfully, accurately, and timeously to both the complainant and the Law Society. The alternative remedy of referral to a disciplinary committee was deemed inadequate to protect public confidence in the legal profession and the justice system. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, as the respondent established a clear right, injury actually committed, and no adequate alternative remedy. The court held that section 72 of the Attorneys Act permitted the application for an interdict without the completion of disciplinary proceedings and that the applicant was afforded a fair hearing....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.