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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 845
|
|
Ranamane v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (69007/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 845 (8 March 2017)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
8/3/17
CASE
NO:
69007/2015
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
PAUL
MODIKENG
RANAMANE
Applicant
(In
the application for leave to appeal)
and
THE
LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN
PROVINCES
Respondent
(In
the application for leave to appeal)
JUDGMENT:
Application for Leave to Appeal
AC SASSON, J
[1]
This
is an application for leave to appeal against this Court's judgment
dated 27 October 2016.
[2]
The
applicant raised various grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal. I
do not deem it necessary to list these grounds. Suffice
to point out
that all of these grounds have duly been considered.
[3]
In
essence the applicant takes issue with the Court's refusal to grant
leave to him to file two further affidavits. The one affidavit
was
delivered to the offices of the Law Society one day prior to the
hearing and the other affidavit was delivered on the day of
the
hearing. Both affidavits were filed late and no proper explanation
was tendered to the Court for the lateness thereof. Furthermore,
no
proper application served before the Court to have the two affidavits
admitted. I should also point out that at the hearing
Senior Council
on behalf of the applicant did not take issue with the ruling of the
court and in fact apologised to the Court for
the matter in which the
matter was handled "in particular the late filing of the one
affidavit which was handed up this morning
and the apparently
non-filing of the main affidavit upon which I have sought to rely and
which your Ladyship and your Lordship
say you never got to see".
[4]
In
the absence of a proper application and in the absence of a proper
explanation for the delay in filing these affidavits, the
Court
refused to accept the affidavits. I am not persuaded that this Court
has erred or misdirected itself in making this ruling.
I am
accordingly not persuaded that there exist reasonable prospects of
success on appeal in respect of this point. I am likewise
not
persuaded that there exists prospects of success on appeal in respect
of the ground that the applicant's constitutional right
to be
afforded a fair hearing was affected by the refusal to allow the
further affidavits.
[5]
The
applicant also raised the point that the Court erred or misdirected
itself in imposing a harsher sentence to that meted out
to Mr Phungo
(the third respondent). This ground for leave to appeal has no merit.
It does not follow as a matter of course that
the mere fact that the
Mr Ranamane and Mr Phungo were co-directors that they should be
treated the same in respect of a sanction.
Ultimately this court has
a discretion which should be exercised taking into account all the
relevant circumstances. One of the
crucial factors that distinguished
Mr Phungo from Mr Ranamane is the finding that it cannot be said that
Mr Phungo was dishonest
and deceitful. Unfortunately the same could
not be said of Mr Ranamane. In fact, Senior Council on behalf of Mr
Ranamane conceded
not only that Mr Ranamane was not candid with the
Court, but that he was unable to advance any submissions that could
absolve Mr
Ranamane from wrongdoing in respect of the R 5 million
deposited by the Department of Public Works into the firm's trust
account.
In this regard I am equally not persuaded that there exist
prospects of success on appeal in respect of this ground.
[6]
In
the event the following order is made:
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
AC
BASSON
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I
agree and it is so ordered:
M
SENYATSI
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For
the applicant (Mr Rabamane): Adv Hassin SC
Instructed
by : MB Mokoena Attorneys
For
the respondent : Mr PJ Smith
Instructed
by : Rooth & Wessels Inc.