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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 321
|
|
Ngcebetsha and Another v Legal Practice Council of South Africa (58530/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 321 (5 May 2021)
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE:
5TH OF MAY 2021
Case
Number: 58530/2019
JOHN
SINDISO NGCEBETSHA
First
applicant
NGCEBETSHA
MADLANGA INC
Second
respondent
And
THE
LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
NQUMSE
AJ
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
the order of this court dated 4 August 2020 and the judgment handed
down by this court
on 13 October 2020.
[2]
The applicants were the respondents in the
application for the first respondent’s name to be struck from
the roll of legal
practitioners and the Legal Practice Council was
the applicant. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to
herein as
cited in the application.
[3]
The grounds of appeal appear fully from the
respondents’ application for leave to appeal and I do not find
it necessary to
repeat same herein.
[3]
The application is in
essence
directed at the court’s
factual findings in respect of the first respondent’s conduct,
the finding that the first respondent’s
conduct does not
conform to the conduct expected of an attorney and thirdly, the
court’s finding that the first respondent’s
conduct
justified his name being struck from the roll of attorneys.
[4]
Mr Jooste, counsel for the applicant, quite
correctly pointed out that the offending conduct of the first
respondent was not seriously
in dispute and was borne out by the
facts contained in the papers before court.
[5]
It was rather the first respondent’s
explanation for his conduct that formed the subject matter of the
dispute. The court
held that the first respondent’s explanation
for his conduct did not pass muster and found on a balance of
probabilities
that the applicant did establish the offending conduct
complained of.
[6]
The grounds of appeal in respect of the
court’s finding in this regard, are without any merit.
[7]
In the next stage of the enquiry, this
court considered the first respondent’s conduct against the
conduct expected of an
attorney. The misappropriation of trust funds
in the manner it occurred
in
casu
falls
far foul from the conduct expected of an attorney, whose profession
should be practised with the highest degree of integrity.
[8]
It is mind-boggling that the first
respondent could classify his conduct as becoming of that of an
attorney. The grounds of appeal
in this regard, similarly, lack any
merit.
[9]
Lastly, the first respondent submitted
that, especially in view of the lengthy time he has practised without
any wrongdoing, this
court should not have ordered his name to be
struck from the roll.
[10]
The submission is untenable. What the first
respondent is in actual fact conveying is that the longer an attorney
practises, the
lesser his conduct could be accepted to conform to the
norm. The grounds of appeal against the sanction imposed by this
court stands,
in a similar vein, to be dismissed.
ORDER
[11]
In the premises, I propose the following
order:
The application is dismissed with
costs on an attorney and client scale.
V. M. NQUMSE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I,
agree.
N. JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE
HEARD
19 February 2021
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED
05 May 2021
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Applicants
(Respondents
in the Court a quo):
Advocate
M.
Nxumalo
Instructed
by:
Ngcebetsha Madlanga Incorporated
On behalf of the Respondent
(Applicant
in the Court a quo):
Advocate C.J. Jooste
Instructed
by:
Iqbal Mahomed Attorneys