Sekukuni v Legal Practice Council and Another (014453/2022)
Sekukuni v Legal Practice Council and Another (014453/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 389 (19 April 2024)
The applicant failed to establish the requisites for final interdictory relief, as she did not prove a clear right or an injury justifying such relief. The demands made in her notice of motion were directed only at the Legal Practice Council, not Ms Jansen, and were not supported by compliance with the prescribed procedures, including payment of the remark fee. The marking of answers written in pencil was in accordance with examination instructions, and no wrongful or defamatory conduct was established. The damages claim was not substantiated, and application proceedings were inappropriate fo…
Source excerpt
- Legal Practitioners Regulation
- Competency Examination
- Final Interdict
- Damages Claim
- Procedural Compliance
- Defamation