Melato v South African Legal Practice Council (3380/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 364 (18 February 2021)

Melato v South African Legal Practice Council (3380/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 364 (18 February 2021)

The Court held that the Legal Practice Council did not violate the rules of natural justice, as the applicant was afforded an opportunity to respond to the complaints via affidavits. The LPC was not required to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing before launching the application for suspension or striking-off, as the decision to do so is preliminary and the High Court is the final arbiter of the applicant's fitness to practice. The LPC acted within its powers under the Legal Practice Act, and the evidence presented justified the decision to launch the application. The applicant's contentions regarding procedural irregularities and unreasonableness were rejected, as the LPC's actions...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 364
Parties
Applicant: Tswantso Phillemon Melato; Respondent: South African Legal Practice Council
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
3380/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
R D Hendricks, F M M Snyman
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Audi Alterem Partem, Legal Practitioners Act, Review of Administrative Action, Attorney Striking Off
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Proceedings Audi Alterem Partem Legal Practitioners Act Review of Administrative Action Attorney Striking Off

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tswantso Phillemon Melato

Applicant

South African Legal Practice Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Practice Council violated the rules of natural justice by not affording the applicant an opportunity to make representations before launching the suspension or striking-off application.
  2. 2 Whether the Legal Practice Council was required to finalize disciplinary proceedings before launching the suspension or striking-off application.
  3. 3 Whether the Legal Practice Council failed to apply the holistic legal framework regulating disciplinary hearings under the Legal Practice Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Legal Practice Council did not violate the rules of natural justice, as the applicant was afforded an opportunity to respond to the complaints via affidavits. The LPC was not required to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing before launching the application for suspension or striking-off, as the decision to do so is preliminary and the High Court is the final arbiter of the applicant's fitness to practice. The LPC acted within its powers under the Legal Practice Act, and the evidence presented justified the decision to launch the application. The applicant's contentions regarding procedural irregularities and unreasonableness were rejected, as the LPC's actions...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the review application on the scale as between attorney and client.