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
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPPHC 516
|
|
Law Society of The Northern Provinces v Hotane (67016/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 516 (23 May 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
CASE NO:
67016/2013
DATE: 23 May 2014
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST
TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter
between:
THE LAW SOCIETY
OF THE NORTHERN
PROVINCES
........................................................
Applicant
and
THEBEYANTWA
PETRUS
HOTANE
........................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LAMMINGA AJ:
[1] This is an
application by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces for an order
in terms of s 22(1 )(d) of the Attorneys Act
53 of 1979, as amended,
for an the removal of the Respondent’s name from the roll of
attorneys. The application is unopposed.
[2] The Respondent
was admitted and enrolled as an attorney of this court on 11 July
2005. He practised as a partner at the firm
of Grobler-Ramalepe
& Partners with effect from 11 July 2005 until 3 October
2005. The Respondent commenced practising
for his own account under
the name and style of T P Hotane Incorporated Attorneys currently
situated at 2
nd
Floor, Office No. 7, 347 ILO House, Cnr
Hilda & Arcadia street, Hatfield, Pretoria, with effect from
3 October 2005. The
Respondent also practiced as a partner at the
firm Hotane Snyman & Taljaard Incorporated Attorneys with
effect from March
2007 until March 2010.
The Respondent is
still on the roll of attorneys of this Court although this Court
already granted an order for his suspension from
practice on 12
November 2013 pursuant to an urgent application for said relief.
[3]
The Law Society is the
custos morum
of
the profession and merely places facts before the court for
consideration.
[4] The following
circumstances were placed before this Court by the Applicant in
support of the application:
(a) The Applicant
received twenty nine complaints against the Respondent. These ranged
from failure to execute the mandate of clients,
failure to respond to
Applicant’s correspondence, transacting on deceased estate
account without consultation or knowledge
of clients, failure to
account to clients and misappropriation of funds.
(b) In all of the
complaints received by the Applicant, the Respondent was called upon
to furnish his explanation, but in most instances
Respondent failed
to respond to Applicant’s correspondence, thereby contravening
Applicant’s rules.
(c) Respondent in
some instances failed to revert to Applicant after undertaking to do
so.
(d) On several
occasions the Respondent appeared before the Disciplinary Committee
of the Applicant, was found guilty and sanctioned
with fines and cost
orders, but failed to pay the fines and cost orders.
(e) Three
disciplinary hearings had been postponed at the request of the
Respondent.
(f) There has been
thirteen complaints which represents possible misappropriation of
funds:
(i)
Ms R M Masemola:
The complaint was
received on 15 November 2012 the Applicant received a complaint from
Ms Masemola in that the Respondent was appointed
as executor of the
estate of Mr M F Khalo who passed away on 29 may 2007, but he failed
to institute a claim against the insurance
company and the claim
lapsed on 31 October 2009. On 24 August 2012 the Respondent agreed to
sell to Ms Masemola the immoveable
property she had been staying in
with the deceased and their two children since 1998 and an amount of
R108 000.00 was deposited
into the Respondent’s firms trust
account. The Respondent was to pay this amount over to the attorneys
for First National
Bank. During August 2012 Ms Masemola received a
notice for the sale of the property since First National bank did not
receive payment.
The Master’s Office instructed the Respondent
to make the payment, which he failed to do. It was through the
intervention
of the Master’s Office that the sale was held in
abeyance. The Respondent failed to provide an explanation when
requested
to do so by the Applicant and through his failure to
respond contravened the Applicant’s rules. A claim has been
lodged against
the Attorneys Fidelity Fund. Respondent, it was
submitted, thus contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 89.15, 89.30 and 89.7
of the Applicant.
(ii)
Ms G Maphila
Applicant received a
complaint during August 2013 from Ms Maphila stating that during
October 2007 she consulted with Respondent
and in her capacity as
guardian of a minor child gave instructions for a claim for
maintenance against the child’s deceased
father’s estate.
On 23 June 2011 she received a letter from Respondent confirming that
R58 065.00 had been collected, but
she did not receive payment from
Respondent. Respondent also neglected to pursue a claim against
Nedbank. Therefor it was submitted
that the Respondent contravened
Rules 89.15, 89.30, 89.7 and 68.8 of the Applicant.
(iii)
Ms M J Kekana
Ms Kekana’s
complaint was received by the Applicant on 20 September 2012. She
stated that during 2007 the Respondent was instructed
to assist her
to collect money due to her after the death of her son. Despite
various undertakings by the Respondent to make payment
to her, she
has not received any communication from him since 2009 and no payment
was made to her by Respondent. On 25 September
2012 the Respondent
was requested to comment on this complaint, but he failed to respond
to the Applicant’s correspondence.
Respondent therefore
contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 89.15, 89.30, 89.7 and 68.8 of the
Applicant.
(iv)
Ms H L Legodi
On 15 August 2013
the Applicant received a complaint from Ms Legodi to the effect that
during 2009 the Respondent was instructed
to assist her to claim her
portion of her deceased husband’s provident fund in terms of a
divorce settlement. During June
2009 the proceeds were allegedly paid
into the trust account of Respondent but Respondent failed to effect
payment to her. Again
this complain was forwarded to the Respondent
for his comment on 26 August 2013, but he failed to respond.
Applicant submits that
the Respondent contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25,
68.7, 89.7 and 68.8 of the Applicant.
(v)
Mr T N Moeketsi
On 12 April 2013 Mr
Moeketsi filed a complaint with the Applicant, stating that during
2006 he instructed the Respondent to institute
a claim against the
Road Accident Fund (“RAF”) on his behalf, following
injuries he had sustained in a motor vehicle
accident. Payment was
allegedly paid by the RAF to the Respondent in December 2012, but
Respondent has not made any payment to
Mr Moeketsi and attempts to
contact the Respondent had been unsuccessful. Applicant requested
Respondent’s comment on 29
April 2013, but Respondent failed to
respond. In a letter dated 26 June 2013 Respondent advised that the
file is with a cost consultant,
and undertook to pay Mr Moeketsi upon
receipt of the file. Applicant submitted that the Respondent
contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25,
68.7, 89.7 and 68.8 of the rules of
the Applicant.
(vi)
Mr I S Makgobe
On 28 June 2013 Mr
Makgobe lodged a complaint with the Applicant alleging that during
2008 Mr Makgobe instructed the Respondent
to institute claim against
the RAF on his behalf. Respondent failed to report any progress to
him and attempts to contact the Respondent
were unsuccessful.
Eventually Mr Makgobe learnt from the RAF call centre that the claim
had been finalized and the payment has
been made to the Respondent,
but Respondent did not make payment to Mr Makgobe. On 04 July 2013
the Respondent was requested to
comment on the complaint but he
responded with a letter dated 12 August 2013 advising that he was in
the process of arranging an
appointment with Mr Makgobe and undertook
to advise the Applicant of the outcome. The Respondent, it was
submitted, contravened
Rules 68.7, 89.7 and 68.8 of the rules of the
Applicant.
(vii)
Ms C Mabena
Ms Mabena filed a
complaint with the Applicant on 19 June 2012 alleging that during
2010 she instructed the Respondent to institute
a claim on her behalf
against the RAF. According to her an amount of R273 329.00 was paid
to Respondent on 30 January 2012 and
Respondent refused to pay out
the money to her alleging that the RAF has not paid his cost. The
Applicant requested the Respondent’s
comment on 25 June 2012
and the Respondent replied with a letter dated 23 July 2012 stating
that the said amount was received,
that R14 500.00 constituted
funeral costs and the rest was to be paid into the Guardians Fund on
behalf of the two minor children.
Respondent alleged that he was
awaiting forms from the Master’s Office to enable payment into
the Guardian’s Fund.
One of the said children had already
attained age of majority and Applicant submitted that there was no
good reason for the delay
in payment and no requirement that the
money had to be paid to the Guardians Fund. A claim has been lodged
against the Attorneys
Fidelity Fund in an amount of R258 829-00. It
was submitted that the Respondent contravened Rules 68.7, 89.7 and
68.8 of the rules
of the Applicant.
(viii)
Vorster & Brandt
Attorneys on behalf of Mr Njosana
The firm of Vorster
& Brandt Attorney (“the firm”) lodged a
complaint with the Applicant on behalf of Mr Njosana
alleging that Mr
Njosana had instructed the Respondent in to attend to his claim
against the RAF. The matter was set down for trial
on 11 October
2011, but since then Mr Njosana did not hear from Respondent and
attempts to contact Respondent was unsuccessful.
Correspondence
addressed to Respondent by the firm also went unanswered and
eventually upon enquiry at the RAF on 25 October 2012
it was
established that the RAF paid an amount of R30 000-00 to Respondent
on 14 December 2011. Respondent confirmed during a telephone
conversation on 25 October 2012 that he was unable to effect payment
as he was unable to contact Mr Njosana. Respondent undertook
to
attend to the matter that day but failed to do so. On 31 October 2012
the firm received a letter from Respondent confirming
that an amount
of R25 981.74 was due to Mr Njosana and he was requested to effect
payment into the firm’s trust account,
which he did not do.
Attempts to contact Respondent afterwards were unsuccessful. On 18
December 2012 the Applicant requested the
Respondent’s comment,
which he failed to respond to. A claim has been lodged against the
Attorneys Fidelity Fund for R25
981.74. Applicant submitted that the
Respondent contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 89.7 and 68.8 of the rules
of the Applicant.
(ix)
Boonzaaier & Du
Plessis Attorneys on behalf of Ms Burger
On 24 January 2012
the Applicant received a complaint from Boonzaaier & Du
Plessis Attorneys (“the firms”)
on behalf of Ms Burger
who had instructed the Respondent to attend to the administration of
her late husband’s estate. The
firm had made several enquiries
via correspondence to determine what happened to a cash amount of R86
000-00 but Respondent did
not respond. The Applicant requested the
Respondent’s comment on the complaint on 30 January 2012 but
Respondent failed to
respond. A claim has been lodged against the
Attorneys Fidelity Fund in an amount of R86 000-00. Applicant
submitted that the Respondent
contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 68.7,
89.7 and 68.8 of the Rules of the Applicant.
(x)
Ms L B Matlhage
(Mapuru)
On 22 November 2011
the Applicant received a complaint from Ms Matlhage alleging that the
Respondent was instructed to attend to
the finalization of her claim
against the RAF. An amount of R240 000-00 were paid into the
Respondent s Trust account on 15 December
2010 but Respondent has
failed to make any payment to Ms Matlhage. The Applicant requested
Respondent on 29 November 2011 to comment
on the complaint, but this
went unanswered. As did the Applicant’s correspondence dated 1
February. On 27 September 2011
Respondent was advised that
disciplinary action will be instituted against him and in a letter
dated 16 April 2012 Respondent was
called to appear at a disciplinary
hearing on 4 June 2012. At the hearing on 4 June 2012 Respondent
requested a postponement as
he had to attend to an urgent application
regarding money fraudulently transferred from one of his estate
accounts and the hearing
was postponed. In a letter dated 23 July
2012 Respondent advised that Ms Matlhage was paid R200 000-00 and the
matter had been
resolved. He was requested to furnish the Applicant
with proof of payment, which he failed to do. An investigation of the
Respondent’s
firm’s accounting records revealed that only
an amount of R140 000-00 were paid to Ms Mathlage (Mpuru). Therefore
it was
submitted that the Respondent contravened Rules 89.23 and
89.25 of the Applicant.
(xi)
Mr I D Msimango
Mr Msimango lodged a
complaint with the Applicant on 8 June 2011 alleging that he
instructed the Respondent to institute a claim
against the RAF on his
behalf. The Respondent undertook to effect payment to him on 30
September 2009, but failed to do so. Upon
enquiry at the RAF Mr
Msimango was informed that the RAF had paid an amount of R51 500-00
to the Respondent on 16 July 2009. The
Applicant requested the
Respondent to comment on the complaint on 28 June 2011, which he
failed to do. On 25 August the Respondent
was cautioned that
disciplinary action would be taken against him, unless he responded,
again he failed to respond and on 4 October
2011 Respondent was
informed that disciplinary action will be instituted against him.
Respondent was called to appear at a disciplinary
hearing on 27
February 2012 which he attended. Respondent was found guilty of
contravening Rule 89.25 of the Applicant’s
rules and fined
R5000-00 of which half was suspended for three years on condition
that Respondent not commit a similar offence
during the period of
suspension. Respondent had to pay the R2500-00 fine within 12 months
which he failed to do. Applicant submitted
that the Respondent
contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 68.8 and 89.8 of the rules of the
Applicant.
(xii)
Mr M Nkwe
On 22 August 2012 Mr
Nkwe filed a complaint with the Applicant stating that during 2009 he
instructed Respondent to represent him
in divorce proceedings and
paid to Respondent fees in excess of R80 000-00. An amount of R216
000-00 was due to Mr Nkwe, and Respondent
failed to effect payment.
The Applicant requested the Respondent to comment on the complaint on
11 September 2012 to which Respondent
replied that he was attending
to payment. On 18 December 2012 Respondent was cautioned that should
he fail to respond with more
detail, disciplinary action would be
instituted against him. On 1 July 2013 Respondent was advised that
disciplinary action will
be instituted against him. The Respondent,
it was submitted, contravened rules 89.23, 89.25, 89.7 and 68.8 of
the rules of the
Applicant.
(xiii)
Mr R I Molefe
Mr Molefe filed a
complaint with the Applicant on 4 May 2011 alleging that during 2005
he instructed the Respondent to institute
a claim on his behalf
against the RAF. He alleges that his claim was settled on 28 July
2010 and an amount of R164 611.37 was paid
to the Respondent but
Respondent never made any payments to him. He also alleges that the
Respondent borrowed R3000-00 from him
in 2005 to start his practise
and that the loan was never repaid. Applicant requested the
Respondent to comment on the complaint
on 5 May 2011, but Respondent
failed to respond. In a letter dated 26 July 2011. Respondent denied
having borrowed money from Mr
Molefe and stated that the delay in
payment of the proceeds from the RAF was due to him being too busy.
Eventually Respondent paid
R109 207.37 to Mr Molefe on 13 June 2012.
The Applicant requested the Respondent to provide reasons for paying
R3000-00 to Mr Molefe
and why he took the attorney and own client
fees as well as the party-and-party fees paid by the RAF. Respondent
did not reply.
In a letter dated 23 April 2012 the Applicant informed
the Respondent that he is required to appear before a disciplinary
hearing
on 30 May 2012. That hearing was postponed sine die as
Respondent briefed council the day before. An investigation of the
Respondent’s
firm’s accounting records reveal that an
amount of R605 451.13 was received by Respondent in May 2012 but only
R228 230.98
was paid to Mr Molefe. Applicant submitted that the
Respondent contravened Rules 89.23, 89.25, 89.7 and 68.8 of the rules
of the
Applicant.
(g) The accounting
records of the Respondent’s firm were investigated by a
chartered accountant duly qualified to conduct
such investigation, Mr
Vincent Faris. He found that the Respondent contravened:
a. Section 78(1) of
the Act read with Rule 69.1 in that the Respondent failed to keep
sufficient funds in the trust account to meet
his obligations to
trust creditors, since there were trust deficits at the end of each
month;
b. Section 78(4) of
the Act read with section 78(6)(d) of the Act in that he failed to
keep proper accounting records as contemplated
in the subsection as
he found data had been manipulated.
c Rule 68(1) read
with Rule 68.5 in that Respondent failed to keep proper business
account records as he found that business account
records were not up
to date.
Due to the
circumstances set out above, the Applicant submits that the
Respondent is not a fit and proper person to practice as
an attorney
and his name should be removed from the roll of attorneys of this
court.
[5] Section 22(1
)(d) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979 ( The Act”) reads as
follows:
'Any person who
has been admitted and enrolled as an attorney may on application by
the society concerned be struck off the roll
or suspended from
practice by the Court within the jurisdiction of which he practises -
(d) if he, in the
discretion of the Court, is not a fit and proper person to continue
to practise as an attorney.'
This
section confers a discretion on the court in the determination of
whether or not an attorney is a fit and proper person. This
discretion must be exercised based on facts placed before it and
these facts must be proven on a balance of probabilities and these
facts should be considered in their totality, not in isolation.
(Law
Society of Transvaal v Mathews
1989
(4) SA 389
(T))
[6]
The court must first determine whether the offending conduct has been
established. Once the facts are established, a value judgment
is
required to decide whether the person is a fit and proper person to
practice as an attorney. If the court decides that the person
is not
a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney, it must decide in
the exercise of its discretion whether in all the
circumstances of
the case the attorney in question is to be removed from the roll or
merely suspended from practice. Ultimately
it is a question of
degree. The facts upon which the court is to exercise its discretion
must be proved on a balance of probabilities
and the court should
consider the facts in their totality and not consider each issue in
isolation. (See
Mathews
case
supra)
[7]
The law requires from an attorney to
uberrima
fides
-
the highest degree of good faith - in his dealings with his clients
which implies that at all times his submissions to his clients
should
be accurate, honest and frank. This also requires from an attorney
never to abuse his position of trust and the fiduciary
relationship
that exists between an attorney and client. The Act and the Rules of
the Applicant requires an attorney to be scrupulous
in his
observations and compliance with the Act and the said Rules.
[8] Rule 89
stipulates that any contravention of the Act or the Applicant's Rules
would constitute unprofessional, dishonourable
and unworthy conduct.
[9] Rule 68 provides
that attorneys should keep complete and accurate accounting records,
which must explain the transactions and
financial position of the
firm and which must distinguish in readily discernable form between
business account transactions and
trust account transactions.
[10] Section 70 of
the Act empowers the Applicant to direct an attorney to provide it
with any document which is in the possession
of such an attorney and
which relates to his practice to enable the council to decide whether
or not a disciplinary enquiry into
the conduct of such attorney
should be conducted.
[11] Section 78(5)
of the Act empowers the Applicant to inspect the accounting records
of any attorney in order to satisfy itself
that the provisions
relating to keeping of trust banking accounts and maintaining of
proper accounting records relating to trust
monies have been
observed.
[12] Rule 70.4 read
with Rule 70.3 requires every attorney who practices for his own
account to cause his auditor to lodge a report
with the Applicant
within six months of the annual closing of his accounting records to
the effect that the attorney has kept such
records as required by the
Act and the Applicant’s Rules and further to the effect that
there were at all relevant times
sufficient monies in his trust bank
account to cover his liabilities to trust creditors. Lodging of an
auditor's report is a prerequisite
for an attorney to be issued with
a fidelity fund Certificate for the commencement of the new year.
[13] The other rules
relevant to this application are quoted below:
“
Rule
68
68.7
Every firm shall within a reasonable time after the performance or
earlier termination of any mandate account to its client
in writing.
Each account shall contain
—
68.7.1
details of all amounts received by it in connection with the matter
concerned
,
appropriately
explained:
68.7.2
particulars of all disbursements and other payments made by it in
connection with the matter;
68.7.3
fees and other charges charged to or raised against the client and,
where any fee represents an agreed fee, a statement that
such fee
was
agreed upon and
the amount so agreed;
68.7.4 the amount
due to or by the client; and the firm shall retain a copy of each
such account for not less than five years.
68.8 Payment of
amounts due to clients.
A firm, unless
otherwise instructed, shall pay any amount due to a client within a
reasonable time. ” “Rule 89:
Unprofessional or
dishonourable or unworthy conduct on the part of a practitioner shall
include, inter alia, the following acts
and omissions:
89.7 without
lawful excuse delaying the payment of trust money after due demand;
89.15 neglecting
to give proper attention to the affairs of his/her clients;
89.23 failure to
answer or appropriately to deal with within a reasonable time any
correspondence or other communication which reasonably
requires a
reply or other response;
89.25 failure to
comply with an order, requirement or request of the council or a
request of the secretary;
89.30 without
reasonable cause or excuse, failing to perform professional work, or
work of a kind commonly performed by a practitioner,
with such a
degree of skill, care or attention, or of such a quality or standard,
as in the opinion of the council may reasonable
be expected. ”
[14] In this case
the facts placed in evidence are undisputed and I find that, on a
balance of probabilities the facts have been
proved. From the facts
so proved it is established that the Respondent on several occasions
contravened the Rules of the Applicant
in that:
(a) He failed to,
within a reasonable time, after performance or earlier termination of
the mandate received from the client, to
furnish the client with a
written statement of account setting out with reasonable clarity full
details and descriptions of all
monies received, all disbursements
and other amounts paid, fees and charges and the amount due to or by
the client;
(b) He failed to pay
the amount due to a client within a reasonable time;
(c) He, without
lawful excuse, delayed the payment of trust money after due demand;
(d) He neglected to
give proper attention to the affairs of his client;
(e) He failed to
respond to, or appropriately deal with, within a reasonable time, any
communication which reasonably required a
response;
(f) He failed to
comply with an order, requirement or request of the Applicant;
(g) He failed,
without lawful cause or excuse to perform work of a kind commonly
performed by a practitioner, with such degree of
skill, care and
attention, or of such a quality or standard, as in the opinion of the
council may reasonably be expected;
(h) He had failed to
keep proper accounting records;
(i) He failed to
keep sufficient funds in his trust account to meet his obligations to
trust creditors and failed to keep proper
accounting records of his
business account.
[15] The conduct of
the Respondent is to say the least, shockingly brazen. He blatantly
neglected his duty towards his clients,
behaved in an extremely
dishonourable way and showed no regard or respect for the provisions
of the Act or the Rules of the Applicant.
There is no excuse for
receiving money on behalf of a client and not accounting to the
client as to the proceeds and deductions
or not paying out the money
due to a client on demand. I am not going to deal with each of the
complaints separately as I have
already found that on each instance
he contravened the Act and or the Applicant’s rules, but I will
refer to some instances
just to underline the gravity of the
Respondent’s dishonourable and unworthy conduct. In some
instances like for example
the complaint by Mr Molefe, he only made
payment to the client two years after the money was paid to him by
the RAF and then only
after the complaint was filed. In Ms Matlhage’s
case he was blatantly dishonest. He reported to the Applicant that he
paid
R200 000-00 to her, but his accounting records reflect that he
only paid her R140 000-00, again two years after he received the
money and payment was only made after the Applicant intervened. The
fact that he clearly, on the evidence tried to avoid or delay
making
payments to clients, that he did not respond when the clients and the
Applicant made enquiries, made false reports as to
the amounts paid,
tailed to provide proof ot payment when requested, and failed to make
payments to clients after giving an undertaking
to pay coupled with
the fact that he had a trust deficit each month, is indicative of a
strong likelihood of misappropriation of
funds.
[16] It is further
clear from the Curator’s report that the Respondent was not
cooperative and actually delayed and frustrated
the curator’s
efforts in not making files and accounting records available. It was
only after the Curator had put a hold
on the Respondent's trust
account that the responded made contact with the Curator. All
previous efforts by the Curator to communicate
with the Respondent
were unsuccessful.
It
was stated in
Botha and Others v Law Society,
Northern Provinces
2009
(3) SA 329
(SCA) at [18]
“
The
iniquity of an attorney being dishonest is self-evident. The degree
of disclosure and openness required of an attorney in proceedings
of
this nature has been stated repeatedly. In Prokureursorde van
Transvaal v Kleynhans
1995 (1) SA 839
(T) at 853G - H it
was
eloquently stated
as follows:
Uit die aard van
die dissiplinêre verrigtinge vloei voort dat van 'n Respondent
verwag word om mee te werk en die nodige toeligting
te verskafwaar
nodig ten einde die voile feite voordie Hof te plaas sodat 'n
korrekte en regverdige beoordeling van die geval kan
plaasvind. Blote
breë ontkennings. ontwykmgs en obstruksionisme hoort nie tuis by
dissiplinêre verrigtinge nie. ”
[17]
Considering the facts and circumstances in its totality I find that
the Respondent has shown on several occasions that he does
not adhere
to the
uberrima
fides
expected
of an attorney. He has no regard for the Act and Rules and his
conduct amounts to a material deviation from the standards
of
professional conduct. He is not a fit and proper person to practice
as an attorney.
Accordingly, I
propose the following order: -
That
the Draft Order marked
“
X”,
which
encapsulates prayers 1 - 12 of the Notice of Motion is made an order
of court in terms of which the Respondent’s name
is removed
from the roll of practicing attorneys of this court.
LAMMINGA AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG
DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree and it is so
ordered
DE VOS J
JUDGE OF THE
GAUTENG
DIVISION OF THE
HIGH COURT