Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Zilo (Review) (CA&R91/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 56 (22 July 2025)
The High Court set aside criminal proceedings after finding the accused was represented by an attorney with no right of appearance, rendering the trial a nullity.
Segole v Road Accident Fund (16923/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 725 (21 July 2025)
The High Court refused default judgment in a Road Accident Fund loss-of-support claim, finding improper prosecution by a trust account advocate, unfair late amendment, and inadmissible quantum evidence.
Dlamini Incorporated and Another v Legal Practice Council of South Africa and Another (2025-064733) [2025] ZAGPPHC 621 (23 June 2025)
The High Court discharged an urgent rule nisi sought by a law firm after its sole director died, and appointed a curator bonis over the trust accounts and practice.
Lekalakala v Kramer Weihmann Inc and PJ Joubert (5087/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 187 (20 June 2025)
The court found that section 34(7)(c) of the Legal Practice Act, as well as analogous provisions in the Companies Acts and Attorneys Act, create joint and several liability for directors and past directors of personal liability companies. However, this statutory liability does not require all potentially liable directors to be joined in the proceedings, as the plaintiff is entitled to select whom to sue among joint and several debtors. The non-joined parties do not have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation that would be prejudiced by the outcome, and thus…
Source excerpt
S v Philander and Others (Special Review) (29/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 291 (6 June 2025)
The High Court held that while Scott's appearance as a struck-off advocate was irregular and constituted a criminal offence under the Legal Practice Act, the Legislature did not intend such irregularity to render proceedings a nullity. The correct approach is to assess whether the irregularity resulted in specific prejudice or a gross deficiency affecting the fairness of the trial. In all five cases, there was no evidence that Scott's conduct compromised the integrity of the proceedings or the accused's fair trial rights. The accused had freely chosen Scott, and the records showed that he dis…
Source excerpt
Mvenya v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (21/46591) [2025] ZAGPJHC 406 (26 April 2025)
The court held that the Legal Practice Act explicitly reserves the right of appearance in the High Court for admitted legal practitioners. Section 25 and section 33 of the Act prohibit laypersons from representing natural persons in court or preparing documents for court proceedings. The common law position, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, is that laypersons may not represent litigants in higher courts, and the court has no discretion to deviate from this statutory restriction. The applicant's agent, Mr. De Beer, lacks the requisite legal qualification and authority to appear, regar…
Source excerpt
Zulu v Philip and Another (D3067/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 7 (25 February 2025)
A lay complainant sought to strike an attorney from the roll directly. The High Court held the application was premature, as internal LPA remedies were not exhausted.
South African Legal Practice Council v Swartz (15857/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 60 (21 February 2025)
The High Court held the Legal Practice Council was not bound by its disciplinary committee and granted a wholly suspended three-year suspension, not strike-off.
Hutchinson Wild v Legal Practice Council and Others (956/2023) [2024] ZASCA 180; 2025 (3) SA 393 (SCA) (19 December 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Legal Practice Council's advisory note did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, since it did not have a direct, external legal effect or adversely affect the appellant's rights. The advisory note merely explained transitional arrangements and did not alter the law or procedure. Section 116(2) of the Legal Practice Act requires pending disciplinary proceedings to be continued as if the repealed law still applied, but does not strip Advocates' Societies of their standing to bring such applications. The common-law powers of the courts…
Source excerpt
Molapo v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (083780/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1284; 2025 (3) SA 557 (GP) (2 December 2024)
The applicant is a foreign advocate admitted in Lesotho after the repeal of the Admission of Advocates Act. The Legal Practice Act repealed the previous dispensation and requires regulations for the admission of foreign practitioners, which have not been promulgated. Section 115 of the Legal Practice Act only applies to those entitled to admission before 1 November 2018, which does not include the applicant. The court found that section 24(3) is not unconstitutional merely because regulations have not been promulgated, and the separation of powers prevents the court from directing the Ministe…
Source excerpt
Explore more
