South Africa Case Law

Pretoria Society of Advocates and Others v Nthai (6271/18)

Pretoria Society of Advocates and Others v Nthai (6271/18) [2019] ZALMPPHC 32; 2020 (1) SA 267 (LP) (18 July 2019)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

6271/18

Judges

EM Makgoba, PM Mabuse

The High Court refused leave to appeal by the Johannesburg Society of Advocates and the Legal Practice Council against Nthai’s readmission as an advocate.

• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Locus Standi Of Bar Councils
• Legal Practice Act Interpretation
• Readmission Of Struck Off Advocate
• Practice Directives
• Administrative Action Review

Ex Parte: Goosen and Others (2019/2137)

Ex Parte: Goosen and Others (2019/2137) [2019] ZAGPJHC 154; [2019] 3 All SA 161 (GJ); 2020 (1) SA 569 (GJ) (17 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/2137

Judges

Sutherland, Modiba, Millar

The court held that the application for recusal was without merit. The mere fact that Millar AJ was a member of the Legal Practice Council, which appeared as amicus curiae, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. His membership was part-time, unremunerated, and did not bind him to the LPC's views in his judicial capacity. The LPC did not have a committed stance on the legal issues, and its role was limited to assisting the court with legal argument. The court further found that an amicus curiae, especially one invited by the court, does not have standing to move for the recusal of a…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Recusal
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Amicus Curiae Role
• Legal Practice Act Interpretation

Proxi Smart Services (Pty) Ltd v Law Society of South Africa (74313/16)

Proxi Smart Services (Pty) Ltd v Law Society of South Africa (74313/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 333; [2018] 3 All SA 567 (GP); 2018 (5) SA 644 (GP) (16 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74313/16

Judges

Matojane, C J van der Westhuizen, J J Strijdom

The court found that the applicant's proposed business model would contravene section 83(8)(a) of the Attorneys Act and related statutory provisions, as the administrative tasks described would amount to preparing or causing to be prepared documents reserved for conveyancers and attorneys. The distinction between 'reserved' and 'non-reserved' work advanced by the applicant is not recognised in the relevant legislation. The relief sought by the applicant was found to be vague, hypothetical, and unenforceable, as the model had not been implemented and the conduct described was not sufficiently…

Source excerpt

• Reserved Conveyancing Work
• Attorneys Act Compliance
• Declaratory Relief
• Fiduciary Duties
• Code Of Conduct Estate Agents
• Legal Practice Act Interpretation