THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 1294/2023

In the ex parte application:

SIYABONGA GUGULETHU GALELA APPELLANT

Neutral citation: Siyabonga Gugulethu Galela (Ex Parte Application ) (1294/2023
[2024] ZASCA 176 (13 December 2024)
Coram: NICHOLLS, MOLEFE, SMITH and UNTERHALTER JJA and DOLAMO
AJA
Heard: 04 November 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down of the judgment is
deemed to be 11h00 on 13 December 2024.
Summary: Admission as a legal practitioner – explanation required on failure to
attach degree certificates – insufficient disclosure on directorship in a company during
practical vocational training – in supplementary papers failures remedied – failure to
attach LLB certificate condoned – proper explanation of indebtedness – good cause
shown for contravention of Legal Practice Council rule 22.1.5.

2




ORDER

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Johnson AJ and
Bokako AJ sitting as court of first instance):
1 The appeal against the order of the high court is upheld.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following order:
‘2.1 The applicant has shown good cause for contravening rule 22.1.5.1 of
the Legal Practice Council (LPC) rules , and it is declared that the practical
vocational training contract entered into between the applicant and Dr Eric
Levenstein is not void ab initio , and that the service rendered thereunder is
effective, as contemplated under rule 22.1.5.2 of the LPC rules;
2.2 The applicant, Siyabonga Gugulethu Galela, be admitted to practise as
a legal practitioner and is authorised to be enrolled as an attorney of the High
Court of South Africa in terms of s 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014
(the LPA); and
2.3 The LPC is authorised to enrol the applicant as a legal practitioner in
accordance with the provisions of s 24, read with s 30, of the LPA.’


JUDGMENT


Nicholls JA (Molefe, Smith and Unterhalter JJA and Dolamo AJA concurring):

[1] That a legal practitioner should display impeccable integrity and the utmost
honesty is unarguable. What courts have grappled with , is what conduct renders a
person unfit to be a legal practitioner. The Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
(the high court) held that Ms Siyabonga Gugulethu Galela (Ms Galela), the appellant,
was not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner . The primary

3

issue for determination is this: what information was Ms Galela obliged to disclose in
her ex parte application for admission, and what consequences flow from the lack of
full disclosure?

[2] The admission of legal practitioners is governed by the Legal Practice Act 28
of 2014 (the LPA). Section 24(6)1 provides that the high court must admit to practice:
a person who is duly qualified; is a South African citizen or permanent resident; who
has served an application containing information as determined by the rules; and who
is a fit and proper person to be so admitted. Section 26 2 of the LPA sets out the
minimum qualifications and the vocational training required . These include having
satisfied the requirements for an LLB degree obtained at any registered university in
South Africa, after pursuing it for the required number of years.

[3] Ms Gale la launched an ex parte application for her admission as a legal
practitioner to the high court in June 2023. She attached a statement of her academic

1 Section 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act provides:
‘(2) The High Court must admit to practise and authorise to be enrolled as a legal practitioner,
conveyancer or notary or any person who, upon application, satisfies the court that he or she­
(a) is duly qualified as set out in section 26;
(b) is a­
(i) South African citizen; or
(ii) permanent resident in the Republic;
(c) is a fit and proper person to be so admitted; and
(d) has served a copy of the application on the Council, containing the information as determined in
the rules within the time period determined in the rules.’
2 Section 26 of the Legal Practice Act provides:
‘(1) A person qualifies to be admitted and enrolled as a legal practitioner, if that person has­
(a) satisfied all the requirements for the LLB degree obtained at any university registered in the
Republic, after pursuing for that degree­

Republic, after pursuing for that degree­
(i) a course of study of not less than four years; or
(ii) a course of study of not less than five years if the LLB degree is preceded by a bachelor's degree
other than the LLB degree, as determined in the rules of the university in question and approved by the
Council; or
(b) subject to section 24 (2) ( b), satisfied all the requirements for a law degree obtained in a foreign
country, which is equivalent to the LLB degree and recognised by the South African Qualifications
Authority established by the National Qualifications Framework Act, 2008 (Act 67 of 2008) ; and
(c) undergone all the practical vocational training requirements as a candidate legal practitioner
prescribed by the Minister, including­
(i) community service as contemplated in section 29, and
(ii) a legal practice management course for candidate legal practitioners who intend to practise as
attorneys or as advocates referred to in section 34 (2) (b); and
(d) passed a competency­based examination or asses sment for candidate legal practitioners as may
be determined in the rules.
(2) An attorney qualifies to be enrolled as a conveyancer, if he or she has passed a competency­based
examination or assessment of conveyancers as determined in the rules by the Council.
(3) An attorney qualifies to be enrolled as a notary, if he or she has passed a competency­based
examination or assessment for notaries as determined in the rules by the Council. ’

4

record from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) which reflected that she had
qualified for a Bachelor of Arts degree on 19 December 2018 and had graduated on
28 March 2019. The academic record for the LLB r eflected that she had qualified on
14 December 2020. It did not reflect that she had graduated.

[4] At the time Ms G alela commenced her admission application, she was
employed at Werksmans Attorneys having entered into, and completed, a practical
vocational training contract (PVT contract) with a director at the law firm. On receipt of
the application, the Gauteng Provincial Office of the LPC drew Ms Galela’s attention
to two matters . First, the fact that she had not attached her LLB certificate to the
application. Second, that she had stated under oath that she did not occupy any other
position, nor was she engaged in any other business whatsoever other than that of a
candidate legal practitioner. The LPC pointed out that according to the Companies
and Intellectual Property Commission’s eServices (CIPC) website, Ms Galela was
listed as having held an active directorship in an enterprise during her period of service
as a candidate legal practitioner. She was invited to file a supplementary affidavit, as
was her principal, explaining her failure to obtain prior written consent from the LPC,
as required by the rules and to indicate why her LLB degree certificate had not been
attached.

[5] Rule 22.1.5 of the rules of the Council provides:
‘22.1.5.1 A candidate attorney shall not have any pecuniary interest in the practice and
service of an attorney, other than in respect of bona fide remuneration for his or her services
as a candidate attorney, and shall not, without prior written consent from the Council, hold or
occupy any office in respect of which he or she receives any form of remuneration, directly or
indirectly, or engage in any other business other than that of candidate attorney, where holding

that office or engaging in that business is likel y to interfere with the proper training of the
candidate attorney.
22.1.5.2 If any candidate attorney contravenes the provisions of rule 22.1.5.1 the
contract concerned shall be void ab initio and service rendered thereunder shall be ineffective
unless the court on good cause shown otherwise directs.’

[6] On receipt of the letter from the LPC, Ms Galela filed a supplementary affidavit.
She stated that, in 2014 , she became a director of Varsigator Solutions (Pty) Ltd

5

(Varsigator) which was incorporated with the aim of developing a mobile application
(the app) to assist students to navigate their university experience, both geographically
and with regard to recruitment activities and career opportunities. It appears that the
app did not gain much traction , and in 2017 i t became impractical for her to pursue
any work on developing the app while continuing with her studies.

[7] Ms Galela says that from 2017 onwards the company was ‘completely dormant
and had thus entered the deregistration process’. She attached a document from the
CIPC eServices biz portal which indicated that the company’s office recorded on 25
February 2017 and 12 June 2019 that there had been no annual returns filed, no
payments made and that the company was in the process of der egistration. On 31
March 2023 it was recorded: ‘FINAL DEREGISTRATION DUE TO ANNUAL RETURN
NON COMPLIANCE’.

[8] Ms Galela attributes her failure to obtain prior written consent to her belief ,
genuinely held, that her directorship of Varsigator had automatically ceased once it
stopped trading in 2017. She therefore was of the opinion that when she entered into
a PVT contract on 1 February 2021, the company had been defunct for some four
years. Accordingly, it did not interfere with her practical vocational training.

[9] Ms Galela’s principal at Werk smans Attorneys confirmed under oath that she
did not disclose her position as a director of Varsigator but that she performed all tasks
assigned to her in a satisfactory manner and her training under the PVT contract was
proper and complete. Ms Galela’s mother who was the administrator of Varsigator,
confirmed that as from February 2017 her daughter performed no duties or functions
as a director of the company which had to all intents and purposes ceased to exist.

[10] Regarding her failure to attach the LLB certificate, Ms Galela explained that
Wits does not issue degree certificates to graduates who are in arrears with their fees.

Wits does not issue degree certificates to graduates who are in arrears with their fees.
Nonetheless, the academic transcript is proof that she has met the necessary
academic requirements for the BA Law and LLB degrees. She provided no information
as to why her university fees had not been paid since at least 2020.

6

[11] When her application for admission came before the high court, the application
of Ms Galela and that of another applicant were stood down to the end of the roll. It
appears that Ms Galela ’s counsel was informed that there was a problem with her
admission. Judgment was reserved in these two matters. When judgment was
delivered on 18 August 2023 in the high court, the application for the admission of Ms
Galela as a legal practitioner was dismissed on the basis that she was not fit and
proper.

[12] The grounds for this finding were twofold. First, with reference t o Varsigator,
she did not resign as a director. The high court held that it was not open to her, or her
principal, to decide whether her business would interfere with her training as a
candidate attorney , only the LPC could make that determination. Significantly, she
failed to disclose that she was a director of Varsigator, and stated under oath that she
did not ‘hold any position or engage in any business whatsoever other than that of a
candidate legal pra ctitioner…during the period of service of my PVT contract ’.
Although she was under a duty to ascertain the true status of the business, she failed
to do so. Instead, she placed patently untrue facts before the high court. The fact that
she believed that the company had been deregistered was no t well-founded and in
any event did not excuse the fact that she made untrue statements under oath.

[13] As regards the second ground, namely Ms Galela’s failure to produce her LLB
certificate as a result of not having paid her fees to Wits, the high court found that it
was highly irresponsible for any person to ignore their financial obligations, least of all
a person who wanted to become an attorney. The court noted that Ms Galela had
proffered no reasons as to why she had reneged on her financial obligations.

[14] There was no appearance by the LPC to object to the admission of Ms Galela.

[14] There was no appearance by the LPC to object to the admission of Ms Galela.
The high court quite correctly pointed out that the LPC is obliged to do m ore than
merely send an email in which its objections are set out. In such circumstances there
should be a substantive contribution by the LPC indicating that it has properly
considered the matter and whether it supports the admission or not.

[15] At the hearing before this Court, it was conceded that insufficient facts had been
proffered on both issues , and that further disclosure was warranted , before a

7

determination could be made as to whether Ms Galela was a fit and proper person to
be admitted as a legal practitioner. She was obliged fully and candidly to disclose why
there was a differentiation between the two academic transcripts which were attached
to her papers, the Bachelor of Arts degree certificate and the Bachelor of Laws degree
certificate. While inability to pay debts is not necessarily a ground for an adverse
finding as to a candidate’s suitability to become a legal practitioner, absent an
adequate explanation, there may well be grounds to find that Ms Galela is a recalcitrant
debtor and therefore not fit and proper . On the papers before us the only information
provided was that she was in arrears with her fees . Therefore although she had
completed the requirements for the qualification, she was ‘not in possession of [her]
LLB degree.’

[16] As to Varsigator, a more detailed explanation was provided but this too was
insufficient. She stated that she did not ever derive an income from the company, and
from 2017 did not perform any functions as a director. More was required than the bald
assertion that it was a non-trading company which had been deregistered in 2023.
More concerning is that the directorship was not disclosed in her original application,
but only upon this being investigated by the LPC.

[17] This Court decided that it was in the interests of justice t o allow Ms Galela an
opportunity to address these two issues more comprehensively , in another
supplementary affidavit, rather than remitting the matter back to the high court.

[18] In her further supplementary papers, Ms Galela provided a detailed explanation
regarding her failure to pay her university fees. Her mother also provided an affidavit
in which she set out fully what led to her being unable to pay her daughter’s fees. At
the beginning of 2020, Ms Galela signed an acknowledgment of debt with Wits as she

the beginning of 2020, Ms Galela signed an acknowledgment of debt with Wits as she
had been unable to make full payment since 2018. The financial situation of her family
deteriorated and once she commenced her PVT at Werksmans Attorneys, she
contributed to the household expenses. This was confirmed by Ms Galela’s mother. In
short, Ms Galela stated that she was not a recalcitrant debtor , rather she was unable
to pay the large sum of more than R143 000 which was owing to Wits. Significantly,
the amount has now been settled and there is no longer an outstanding amount owing
to Wits.

8


[19] Ms Galela, relying on the ex parte application of Tlotlego,3 believed that it was
unnecessary to provide any further details as to why she had not paid her university
fees. The high court set aside a practice directive in the Gauteng Division requiring
proof of a payment arrangement entered into with the university regarding payment of
the outstanding fees, where a degree certificate had not been attached due to failure
to pay tuition fees. It held that the absence thereof could not disqualify a legal graduate
from entering the profession , and it was not the preserve of the court to oversee the
debtor/creditor relationship between a former student and the university.4

[20] As such , the high court in Tlotlego found that evidence of a payment
arrangement to satisfy the court that the debt with the university would be purged, was
not relevant to the evaluation of fitness and propriety. It held that courts should never
act as a ‘gatekeepers of students in poverty’.5

[21] It is correct that courts will not keep a poverty stricken graduate out of the legal
profession. However, where an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner fails to
attach a degree cer tificate, a full and detailed ex planation for this omission must be
provided. There may well be grounds for condoning the lack of a degree certificate ,
but this will not always be the case. The applicant has to put up sufficient evidence to
show that she is not a recalcitrant debtor. Any person who deliberately and
intentionally fails to pay their tuition fees, when they have the means to do so, or at
least to make some inroads in the reduction of their indebtedness, is not a person of
impeccable honesty and integrity and thus is not a fit and proper person to enter the
legal profession.

[22] Ms Galela also set out further details in respect of her directorship of Varsigator.
She and a friend had set up the business on the strength of R300 000 provided by her

She and a friend had set up the business on the strength of R300 000 provided by her
mother in exchange for a 20 per cent share in the business. This was paid to a
company to develop the app. The development ultimately failed and the business did
not get off the ground. Varsigator never opened a bank account, it received no income,
as a result of which it filed no tax re turns. Ms Galela attempted to recoup the monies

3 Ex parte Tlotlego 2017 JDR 1989 (GJ).
4 Ibid para 4.
5 Ibid paras 13-14.

9

from the development company and left the process of deregistration to her mother.
In hindsight, she acknowledges that this was irresponsible and that she should have
driven the process of deregistration of Varsigator, or at least conducted enquiries as
to its status at the time of launching her application for admission.

[23] Ms Galela’s supplementary affidavit has set out a proper explanation as to why
she did not disclose that she was a director of Varsigator. In short, the business failed.
As a result Varsigator never opened a bank account, received no income and did not
file tax returns. In my view her non -disclosure, albeit negligent, was not inten ded to
deceive nor did the directorship interfere with her proper training. There are sufficient
grounds for this Court to condone her non -compliance with rule 22.1.5. In addition, I
am satisfied that her reason for non-payment of her university tuition is not due to any
dishonesty on her part but rather a genuine inability to pay her fees at the time. These
have now been paid in full. In the circumstances I am of the view that Ms Galela is a
fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession.

[24] In the result, the following order is made:
1 The appeal against the order of the high court is upheld.
2 The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following order:
‘2.1 The applicant has shown good cause for contravening rule 22.1.5.1 of
the Legal Practice Council (LPC) rules, and it is declared that the practical
vocational training contract entered into between the applicant and Dr Eric
Levenstein is not void ab initio , and that the service rendered thereunder is
effective, as contemplated under rule 22.1.5.2 of the LPC rules;
2.2 The applicant, Siyabonga Gugulethu Galela, be admitted to practise as
a legal practitioner and is authorised to be enrolled as an attorney of the High
Court of South Africa in terms of s 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014
(the LPA); and

10

2.3 The LPC is authorised to enrol the applicant as a legal practitioner in
accordance with the provisions of s 24, read with s 30, of the LPA.’



C HEATON NICHOLLS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

11

Appearances:

For appellant: R Pearse SC (with S Mohammed)
Instructed by: Sami Modiba Attorneys, Johannesburg
Hattingh Attorneys Inc, Bloemfontein.