1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER J UDGES: NO
REVISED: NO
DATE: 5.2.2025
Case Number: 35120/2022
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant
And
GREG DE LA HUNT First Respondent
DE LA HUNT & KAMFFER INCORPORATED Second Respondent
And
Case Number : 35119/2022
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant
and
DANELLE KAMFFER
First Respondent
DE LA HUNT & KAMFFER INCORPORATED Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
2
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J:
Introduction
[1] On 20 April 2023 the applicant obtained orders in terms of which the
first respondents in the respective matters were suspended from practising as
legal practitioners pending the finalisation of the applications for their names
to be struck from the roll of legal practit ioners.
[2] The respective first respondents practiced under the name and style
of the second respondent and the facts relied upon by the applicant for the
removal of their names from the roll of legal practitioners are largely the
same. In the result the matters were heard together and this judgment is
handed down in both matters .
[3] The first respondents will be referred to collectively as "the
respondents " or individually as "de la Hunt" and " Kamffer ".
Legal position
[4] The question whether a legal practitioner is a fit and proper person to
practice as such lies in the discretion of the court . In exercising its discretion,
the court embark on a three- stage inquiry, to wit
4.1 First, a factual enquiry;
4.2 Should the factual inquiry establish the offending conduct , the
second inquiry is whether the practitioner is fit and proper to continue to
practise :
4.3 If the person is not fit and proper to practise as an attorney , the
third inquiry involves the sanction to be imposed on the person.
3
[See inter alia: Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA)]
Factual inquiry
[5] The facts underlying the application is common cause between the
parties . De la Hunt was admitted as an attorney on 19 May 2017 and Kamffer
on 22 May 2017. As stated supra they were practising for their own accounts
under the name and style of De la Hunt & Kamffer Incorporated at the time
that the applications were brought.
[6] The applications for the suspens ion order were based on the following
facts :
6.1 they were practising as attorneys without fidelity fund certificates
since 1 January 2021;
6.2 they failed to submit their auditor 's reports for the financial
periods ending 29 February 2020 and 28 February 2021 ;
6.3 they failed to pay their annual fees for the years 2020 , 2021 and
2022.
[7] The applicant explained that the purpose of a fidelity fund certificate is
to protect the general public and that the Legal Practitioner's Fidelity Fund
was founded for the purpose of reimbursing persons who suffer pecuniary loss
as a result of theft committed by a practising attorney . The seriousness of the
respondents ' conduct in practising without fidelity fund certificates cannot be
overemphasised .
[8] The applicant stated that the conduct of the respondents is firstly ,
contrary to the peremptory legal requirements applicable to attorneys and
4
secondly, placed trust creditors who may suffer pecuniary loss as a result of the
misappropriation of trusts monies, at risk.
[9] Insofar as the failure to submit auditor 's reports in terms of Rule 54 of
the Legal Practice Council Rules (LPC Rules) is concerned , the applicant
pointed out that the failure constitutes misconduct in terms of Rule 57.1 .A fidelity
fund certificate is issued on the strength of unqualified audited reports and the
importance of submitting the reports is self -evident.
[10] Lastly, their failure to pay annual fees amounts to unprofessional
conduct in terms of Rule 4 of the PLC Rules.
[11] The order issued on 20 April 2023, suspending the respondents from
practic ing as attorneys placed certain obligations on the respondents . The court
appoi nted curator bonis had to ensure that these obligations were complied
with and to this end the curator filed a report detailing the status of the
practice and the conduct of the respondents .
[12] The report revealed inter alia the following :
12.1 on 26 May 2023 there was an amount of R 150, 00 available in
the second respondent trust banking account;
12.2 the sheriff served the suspension order on the respondents on
31 May 2023. In contravention of the court order the respondents failed
to hand over their client files to the sheriff and informed the sheriff that
they do not have client files. The sheriff could not find any client files;
12.3 in contravention of the court order the respondents failed to
hand their complete accounting records to the sheriff . The sheriff was
provided with a letter from the respondents ' auditors stat ing that the
auditors w ere in the process of conducting an audit of their trust
5
accounting records .
[13] The respondents eventually and on 23 September 2023 , submitted
audited reports for the financial periods 2020 , 2021 and 2022 to the
applicant. T he audited reports revealed that the respondents ' accounting
records w ere writte n up and balanced up to 31 July 2022 . The reports further
indicated that the trust bank account and trust investment accounts of the
respondents had a balanc e of R2 834 863, 97 on 31 August 2021 and a
balance of R 2 976 049, 64 on 2 February 2022. The reports also confirm
that the respondents ' trust account had been maintained, in all material respects,
in compliance with the LPC Rules and the Legal Practice Act , 28 of 2014 (the
Act).
[14] Karnffer was employed by Aucamp and Cronje Attorneys from 1 August
2021 to 30 June 2024 and de la Hunt was employed by the same firm from 1
September 2021 to 30 June 2024. Both respondents took up employment with
Cronje Attorneys during July 2024 and was still employed by the firm at the time of
the hearing of the matter.
[15] The employment of the respondents with Aucamp and Cronje Attorneys
from respectively August and September 2021 until 19 April 2023 was in breach
of several LPC Rules to wit:
15.1 they did not notify the Council of their employment with Aucamp
and Cronje ;
15.2 they abandoned their practice respectively during August and
September 2021. The respondents did, however , not close their practice in
terms of Rule 54. 31 and 54.32. Their failure to comp ly with these Rules
constitutes misconduct in terms of Rule 57. 1.
[16] Their employment after their suspension was without the consent of the
6
Council, in contempt of the court order and contravened the following provisions of
the Act:
16.1 section 33(2) in holding themselves out as legal practitioners;
16.2 section 33(4) by being rendering services as a l egal practitioner
and bei ng engaged i n a legal firm;
16.3
in contravening section 33, the respondents committed an
offence in terms of section 93(2).
Fit and proper
[17] Having established the offending conduct of the respondents , the
quest ion whether they are still fit and proper to practice as attorneys needs to
be considered .
[18] In respect of their failure to submit auditors ' reports for the financial
periods ending 29 February 2020 and 28 February 2021 , the respondents
who are in both a romantic and professional relationship, expla ined that
Kamffer 's mother ass isted them during 2018 , 2019 and the beginning of 2020
with bookkeeping .
[17] Kamffer 's mother travelled from Potchefstroom to Kempton Park
weekly to update the financial records of the practice. As a resul t of the
COVID hard lockdown which commenced at the end of March 2020, Kamffer 's
mother could no longer travel to the practice to attend to the bookkeeping .
[18] Due to the COVID lockdown, the respondent s we re unable to see
clients and to attend court . As a result of the COVID period and spec ifically
the job losses that occurred during the period, clients could no longer afford
the services of the respondents . Accordingly , the practice was no longer
viable and both their incomes were nullified in June 2021.
7
[19] In order to make ends meet , the respondents took the following steps :
19.1 they sold both their vehicles ;
19.2 they cancelled their medical aid and insur ance policies ;
19.3 they cut down on all unnec essary as well as necessar y
expenses ; and
19.4 exhausted all avenues of credit.
19.5 they obtained alternative employment during respectively
August and September 2021 .
[20] The respondents admitted that they did not hand over their client files
to the sheriff and stated that there were no clients that held any funds in the
trust account of the second respondent Consequently , there were no active
client files to be handed to the sheriff . The respondents received confirmation
from Ms Zandile at the curator's office that they were only required to hand over
client files for those clients that have active trust balances and are entitled to
be refunded.
[21] The respondents denied that they abandoned the practice of the
second respondent and stated that they finalised the minimal matters that
remained after the COVID pandemic. The respondents , furthermore, kept a
detailed record of the trust funds and trust creditors of the second
respondent. As is evident from their audited reports, there were no trust
funds left in the trust account. The respondents have submitted a closing
audit report to the Council on 15 October 2024 and stated that they do not
wish to practice for their own account any longer .
8
[22] The respondents paid their outstanding annual membership fees on
18 April 2023.
[23] In respect of their employment with Aucamp and Cronje Attorneys , the
respondents stated that they initially planned on being employed at the firm for
a period of three months whist attempting to resuscitate the second respondent.
The respondents stated that because it was initially only for a three- month
period , they did not inform the Council.
[24] Instead of attending to the general duties of attorneys , the respondents
realised that they would be assisting with the administrative backlog relating
to the correspondent work of the firm. The type and volume of work the
respondents did at the firm after the date of the suspension order , the
respondents were expected to do precluded them from an opportunity to
resuscitate the second respondent.
[25] The respondents stated that they became depressed, felt hopeless
and was under immense emotional strain. As a result of their sense of futility,
hopelessness and general inability to see any light at the end of the tunnel , they
neglected to comply w ith any of their professional requirements.
[26] Without resuscitating the second respondent, the respondents had no
source of income and remained in the employment of the firm to survive
financially .
[27] Concerning their employment after the suspension order , the
respondents stated that they were unaware that they had to obtain
permission from the Council to be so employed. Upon being made aware of the
transgression dur ing August 2024, they immediately applied to the Council for
permission to be employed by Cronje Attorneys. The respondents reiterated
that they remained employed after April 2023 to survive financially .
9
[28] In considering whether the respondents are fit and proper to continue
to practice, the court exercises a discretion . An important consideration in the
exercise of the discretion is the protection of the public . [See Malan and Another
v Law Society , Northern Provinces 2009 (1) 216 (SCA) at para [4] and [7]].
[29] Furthermore , as aptly stated by Harms ADP in the Malan matter:
"[9] .... the exercise of this discretion is not bound by rules, and
precedents consequently have a limited value. A ll they do is to indicate
how other courts have exercised their discretion in the circumstances of
a particular case . Facts are never identical , and the exercise of a
discretion need not be the same in similar cases . If a court were bound
to follow a precedent in the exercise of its discretion it would mean that
the court has no real discretion . (See Naylor and Another v Jansen A
2007 (1) SA 16 (SCA) at para 21.)"
[30] The cond uct of the respondents in failing to submit auditors report
and as a consequence , practising without a fidelity fund certificate is no doubt
serious. The rationale behind the requirement of submitting an auditor 's report
in order to obtain a fidelity fund certificate is mainly to protect the public
against unscrupulous attorneys who misappropriate trust funds .
[31] In casu the respondents did not misappropriate trust funds. To the
contrary, and notwithstanding the fact that they were in financial d ire straits ,
the respondents did not touch the money in the trust account of the second
respondent. The respondents sold the ir vehicles and cancelled their medical
aid and insurance in an attempt to make ends meet.
[32] Albeit in contravention of the LPC Rules , they sought employment in
order t o survive financially. The conduct of the respondents cannot be viewed
in a vacuum. The transgressions were brought about by the decline in their
practice. Their endeavours to resuscitate the practice were thwarted by the
10
type and volume of work they were engaged in at Aucamp and Cronje
Attorneys.
[33] It is understandable that they , in the circumstances felt helpless ,
despondent , depressed and i ncapab le of taking rat ional decisions .
[34] It is noteworthy that the Council received no complaints from c lients of
the practice in respect of the manner in which the respondents executed their
legal duties . One should therefore accept that they served their clients
professionally and with the necessary legal knowledge.
[35] The respondents, albeit it belatedly, submitted the outstand ing
auditor 's reports, a closing report , paid there outstanding annual fees and
subm itted a request to the Council to p ractice at Mr Cronje's firm. This
conduct ind icates that the respondents , not only have insight in the enormity
of their transgressions but also have the ability to remedy same.
[36] The respondents readily admitted their misconduct and have shown
remorse for their failings . I am satisfied that they have l earned a val uable
lesson tha t would preclude them from repeating their transgressions in future .
On their own admission they , however, lack the necessary skills to do proper
accounting .
[37] Their conduct to my mind should not prohibit them from practising as
attorneys but should prohibit them for practising for their own account. The
respondents are relatively young, having only be admitted in 2017 and might at a
later stage wish to practice for their own accounts . In deciding on an appropriate
sanction, I will take the aforesaid into account.
Sanction
[38] In the premises, I am of the view that the suspension should be uplifted/
11
(lifted?) and that an order be issued prohibiting the respondents to practice for their
own account. Should the respondents wish to practice for their own account they
must satisfy the Council and the court that they have the necessary accoun ting
skills to do so.
Costs
[39] The respondents requested that a cost order be ordered on a party and
party scale . I could, however , not find any conv incing reason to deviate from the
normal order on the scale of attorney client.
ORDER
In the result , I propose the following order :
Case number 35120/2022
1. The suspension of Greg de la Hunt to practice as a legal
practitioner is uplifted.
2. Greg de la Hunt may not practice as an attorney for his own account.
3. Should Greg de la Hunt wish to practice for his own account , he must
satisfy the Council and the court that he possesses the necessary
accounting skills to do so.
4. Greg de la Hunt is ordered to pay the costs of the application on an
attorney client scale .
Case number: 35119/2022
1. The suspension of Danelle Kamffer to practice as a legal
12
practitioner is upl ifted.
2. Danelle Kamffer may not practice as an attorney for her own
account.
3. Should Danelle Kamffer wish to practice for her own account , she
must satisfy the Council and the court that she possesses the necessary
account ing sk ills to do so.
4. Danelle Kamffer is ordered to pay the costs of the applicat ion
on an attorney client scale .
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I agree.
KEKANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
It is so ordered.
DATE HEARD:
28 January 2025
Case number: 35119/2022
1. The suspension of Danelle Kamffer to practice as a legal
practitioner is uplifted.
13
2. Danelle Kamffer may not practice as an attorney for her own
account.
3. Should Danelle Kamffer wish to practice for her own account ,
she must sat isfy the Council and the court that she possesses the
necessary accounting skills to do so .
4.
Danelle Kamffer is ordered to pay the costs of the
application on an attorney client scale .
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I agree.
KEKANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH A FRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
It is so ordered.
DATE HEARD:
28 January 2025
DATE DELIVERED:
5.2.2025 APPEARANCES
14
For the Applicant: Adv Stocker
Instructed by: RW Attorneys
For the Defendant: Adv Malherbe
Instructed by : Pro Bono