South Africa Case Law

Tjiroze v South African Legal Practice Council and Another (2022-036448)

Tjiroze v South African Legal Practice Council and Another (2022-036448) [2023] ZAGPJHC 984 (18 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-036448

Judges

GC Wright, L Wepener

The High Court dismissed Mr Tjiroze’s application for admission as an advocate and a related urgent application, finding he was not fit and proper and lacked the required qualification certification.

• Admission Of Advocates
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Foreign Legal Qualifications
• Punitive Costs
• Certification Of Qualifications
• Admission-of-advocates

Mukwevho v Legal Practice Council (48650/2021)

Mukwevho v Legal Practice Council (48650/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 962 (6 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48650/2021

Judges

S. Potterill, A. Cajee

Application to admit an attorney dismissed after the court found material non-disclosure of disciplinary proceedings and held the applicant was not fit and proper.

• Admission Of Attorneys
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Material Non Disclosure
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Legal Practitioner Integrity
• Attorney-admission

Nothnagel v South African Legal Practice Council (46574/19)

Nothnagel v South African Legal Practice Council (46574/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 75 (8 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46574/19

Judges

Neukircher, Khwinana

The applicant failed to provide sufficient information in his founding affidavit regarding the circumstances of his previous striking off, the nature of the charges, his response to complaints, evidence of remorse, and professional rehabilitation. The court held that full disclosure of all material facts is required for admission, and the applicant's failure to do so left critical questions unanswered. The request to file a supplementary affidavit was refused as the evidence was always available and deliberately withheld. The applicant did not discharge the onus to prove he is fit and proper,…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioners Admission
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Legal Practice Act
• Costs Award

Montshiwa; In re: John v Montshiwa (56/2019), Ex parte

Montshiwa; In re: John v Montshiwa (56/2019), Ex parte [2020] ZANWHC 54 (3 September 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

56/2019

Judges

Olivier, Mbhele

The High Court dismissed an attorney-admission application after finding material inconsistencies, incomplete disclosure, and concerns about fitness to practise.

• Admission Of Attorneys
• Legal Practice Act
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Practical Vocational Training
• Locus Standi
• Joinder And Condonation

Law Society of the Free State v Majola (4776/2015)

Law Society of the Free State v Majola (4776/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 145 (12 August 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4776/2015

Judges

Daffue, Fischer

The High Court suspended an attorney for one year after finding repeated non-cooperation with disciplinary directives and poor handling of client trust matters.

• Attorneys Act Section 22
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Trust Account Management
• Failure To Cooperate
• Suspension Of Attorney

Gidani (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others (65337/2015)

Gidani (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others (65337/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 609 (13 May 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

65337/2015

Judge

Mothle

High Court review dismissed a challenge to the Minister’s award of the Third National Lottery Licence to Ithuba, finding no unlawful or irrational conduct.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Lotteries Act
• Rationality Review
• Ministerial Discretion
• Public Procurement
• Fit And Proper Requirement

Pyke v Bensure Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (P 356/11)

Pyke v Bensure Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (P 356/11) [2013] ZALCPE 17 (16 July 2013)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P 356/11

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court dismissed an application to set aside a debarment, holding that the dispute should be pursued as an unfair labour practice through the CCMA.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Interdict
• Debarment
• Jurisdiction
• Fit And Proper Requirement
• Unfair-labour-practice