About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 144
|
|
Maponya and Another v South African Legal Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 144; 48141/21 (27 February 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO. 48141/21
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
YES/NO
27/02/2023
In
the matter between:
MAKHUDUGA
HARRIET MAPONYA
First Appellant
MAPONYA
(MAPULANA)NINCORPORATED
Second Appellant
AND
SOUTH
AFRICAN LEGAL COUNCIL
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA
J
1.
On the 15 June 2022 Budlender AJ delivered a
judgement whereby the first respondent was suspended to practice as a
legal practitioner.
2.
On the 25
th
August
2022 the legal practice council lodged an application before me that
the order dated 15 June 2022 should not be suspended
pending a
decision in an application for leave to appeal either to this court
or to the supreme court of appeal and that the order
should remain in
force.
3.
Counsel for the applicant addressed the count and
submitted that the respondent’s clients and former clients,
members of the
general public and the attorney’s profession
will suffer irreparable harm should the order dated 15 June 2022 not
be made
operational.
4.
In motivating the application counsel for the
applicant pointed out that the irreparable harm lies therein that
substantial amounts
of money of the complainants having already been
deposited in the respondent’s account might not be retrieved
should the
respondent be allowed to proceed with her practice until
the appeal had been finalised.
5.
Section 18 (3) of the superior courts Act 10 of
2013 provides that the court may grant an order which order is to be
executed where
the applicant has illustrated that he or she will
suffer irreparable harm if the court does not so order and that the
other party
will not suffer irreparable harm if the court so orders.
6.
In opposing the application, the respondent filed
an answering affidavit. In the affidavit the respondent submitted
that leave to
appeal against the judgement of Budlender AJ will
succeed. She further submits that the matter is not urgent and no
exceptional
circumstances exists, as envisaged in section 18 of the
superior Act for the immediate enforcement of the matter.
7.
After hearing both council I gave the order as
per case-lines 000-1 the reasons for the order were given in court
however the respondent
did not transcribe my initial judgement.
8.
In a nutshell I found the application to be
urgent based on the submission by counsel for the applicant and the
judgement by Budlender
AJ.
9.
I stand by my reasons given in court on the 25
th
August 2022
D.
MAKHOBA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For
the Plaintiff:
Adv S.M Leso
Instruction:
Mapulana Maponya Inc
For
the Defendant:
Adv John Mohoto
Instructed
by:
Date
heard:
25 August 2022
Date
delivered:
25/08/2022