Obose v Cape Law Society (10699/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 131 (6 October 2016)

Obose v Cape Law Society (10699/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 131 (6 October 2016)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus required for readmission as an attorney. He did not accept responsibility for the misappropriation of client funds, instead characterizing his conduct as improper bookkeeping. His explanation for the events was inconsistent, unsupported by admissible evidence, and contradicted by affidavits and findings in the striking off application. The applicant failed to disclose material facts, lacked candour, and did not demonstrate genuine remorse or rehabilitation. The evidence presented, including hearsay from a former personal assistant and an affidavit from an attorney with limited contact, was insufficient to establish reformation or trustworthiness....

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 131
Parties
Applicant: Kholo Ashley Obose; Respondent: The Cape Law Society
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2016
Case Number
10699/2016
Procedural Posture
Readmission Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Schippers, Yekiso
Legal Topics
Attorneys Act Section 15, Readmission of Attorney, Fit and Proper Person, Misappropriation of Client Funds, Hearsay Evidence, Professional Ethics
Civil Procedure Attorneys Act Section 15 Readmission of Attorney Fit and Proper Person Misappropriation of Client Funds Hearsay Evidence Professional Ethics

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kholo Ashley Obose

Applicant

The Cape Law Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Readmission Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be readmitted and re-enrolled as an attorney under section 15(3) of the Attorneys Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated genuine, complete and permanent reformation since being struck off the roll.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has accepted responsibility for the misappropriation of client funds and shown sufficient contrition.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus required for readmission as an attorney. He did not accept responsibility for the misappropriation of client funds, instead characterizing his conduct as improper bookkeeping. His explanation for the events was inconsistent, unsupported by admissible evidence, and contradicted by affidavits and findings in the striking off application. The applicant failed to disclose material facts, lacked candour, and did not demonstrate genuine remorse or rehabilitation. The evidence presented, including hearsay from a former personal assistant and an affidavit from an attorney with limited contact, was insufficient to establish reformation or trustworthiness....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the respondent’s costs on the scale as between attorney and client.