About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 798
|
|
Mavudzi and Another v Majola (49039/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 798 (30 September 2022)
.
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
CASE
NUMBER: 49039/2021
REPORTABLE:
no
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: no
2022/09/2022
In
the matters between:
MAXWELL
MAVUDZI
First Applicant
JEREMIAH
NYASHA MUSIWACHO DUBE
Second Applicant
and
SKHUMBUZO
MAJOLA
Respondent
This
judgment has was delivered orally on 30 September 2022 in court and
was thereafter revised and uploaded to the caselines, and
further and
communicated to the parties by email.
APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Sutherland
DJP
Introduction
[1]
We have read the notice for application for leave to appeal which was
extensive in
its detail and we have heard argument from Mr Mavudzi
and from council on behalf of the Legal Practice Council and on
behalf of
the National Prosecuting Authority for Mr Majola, whose
conduct is the subject matter of the case.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal, in our view, must be dismissed.
The premise of
the application for leave to appeal is that a Court of
Appeal is likely to overturn the decision of this court which was to
refuse
an application to strike off Advocate Majola name from the
Roll of legal practitioners in circumstances where there had been no
investigation of the allegations of misconduct.
[3]
The argument that was presented by Mr Mavudzi today, essentially, was
premised on
the proposition succeeding that the Court of Appeal would
be satisfied to make a finding of fact that there was misconduct on
the
part of Advocate Majola and that, in turn an application to
strike him off would be appropriate. That is the threshold that needs
to be exceeded in order for the application to succeed.
[4]
It is plain, in our view, that there is no merit in that contention
and the prospects
of another court finding otherwise and overturning
the order are non- existent.
[5]
There was a related argument in relation to costs and whether or not
it was proper
for the State Attorney to afford its assistance at
public expense on behalf of Advocate Majola. The argument ran that he
should
have borne his own legal expenses.
Ergo
, the order made
in the main application that Mr Mavudzi pay the costs of the
application is inappropriate. In our view the premise
of that
argument is ill-founded as it is plain that Advocate Majola’s
misconduct was committed in the course of his official
capacity.
[6]
It seems in our view given the considerations I referred to that the
costs of this
application should also be borne by Mr Mavudzi.
[7]
Accordingly, I make the following order:
(1)
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
(2)
The first and second applicants shall bear the
costs of this application
Sutherland
DJP
I
agree:
Molahlehi
J
Heard:
30 September 2022
Judgment:
30 September 2022
The
Applicants were represented by the first Applicant, in person.
The
First and Third respondents (Adv S Majola and the National
Prosecuting Authority):
Adv
C Georgiades SC
Instructed
by the State Attorney.
The
Second respondent (The Legal Practice Council):
Adv
T C Tshavhungwa,
Instructed
by Damons Margardie Richardson Attorneys