(1) REPORTABLE :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVIS ION, PRETORIA
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3)
(4)
CASE NO .: 079786/23
In the matter between:
THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL App licant
and
ARNOLD MKHABELA First Responden t
MKHABELA INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS Second R espondent
JUDGMENT

Kumalo J
INTRODUCTION
(1]. The applicant seeks, amongst others, an order for the removal of the First
Respondent's name from the roll of legal practitioners, alternatively, for his
suspension from practice as a legal practitioner.
[2]. The First Respondent was admitted and enrolled as an attorney of this Court on
11 January 2000. He commenced practising as a sole practitioner under the
name and style of Mkhabela Incorporated Attorneys with effect from 10 April
2000. He also practised as a partner at the firm Khoza, Mkhabela & Maluleke
Attorneys from 1 May 2001 to December 2001, and as a partner at the firm
Mhlaba Attorneys from May 2006 to October 2007.
(3]. The Applicant alleged that the First Respondent has engaged in serious
misconduct that justifies his removal from the roll of legal practitioners, including
misappropriation of trust funds and practising without a fidelity fund certificate.
[4]. It is trite law that matters of this nature are sui generis. There is no /is between
the Applicant and the Respondents. The Applicant, as the custodian of the
profession, merely places facts before this Court for its consideration.
[5]. It is further trite law that in matters of this nature, the enquiry that the Court must
conduct is threefold, namely:

5.1 It must decide as a matter of fact whether the alleged offending conduct by the
legal practitioner has been established.
5.2 If the Court is satisfied that the offending conduct has been established, a
value judgment is required to decide whether the person concerned is not a fit
and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner.
5.3 If the Court decides that the legal practitioner concerned is not a fit and proper
person to practise as a legal practitioner, it must decide in the exercise of its
discretion whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the legal practitioner
in question is to be removed from the roll or merely suspended from practice.
[6]. The First Respondent is alleged to have failed to pay his annual fees in the total
amount of R10 608.34. He was called to a disciplinary hearing, which was held
on 18 May 2021, and was ordered to pay a fine of R10 ,000.00 plus the costs of
the disciplinary committee in the amount of R3 ,611.51 . The First Respondent
failed to pay the amounts above.
[7]. Failure to pay the fine and costs is misconduct on the part of a legal practitioner
and is a contravention of Rule 6 of the LPC Rules, read with clause 3. 16 of the
Code of Conduct.
[8]. There are several complaints by clients of the First Respondent, and this court
does not intend to regurgitate all the facts thereof. Suffice it to state that they
relate to the First Respondent's failure to carry out their instructions. On 26 April

2023, the Applicant received a complaint from Ms. Zanele Florence Zwane .
During 2018, Ms. Zwane instructed the First Respondent to institute proceedings
against the Road Accident Fund on her behalf and never received any
communication from the First Respondent since 2018.
[9}. PJ Sebetha Attorneys also laid a complaint against the First Respondent on
behalf of Mr. Zitho Thomas Mclane, who alleged that he instructed the First
Respondent to institute proceedings against the RAF on his behalf. On 06 August
2019, RAF made an offer of R350 000.00 to settle the matter, which offer was
accepted. First Respondent failed to account to the complainant and to effect
payment in favour of the complainant.
[10]. A further amount of R39 864.37 in respect of costs was paid into the First
Respondent's trust account.
[11]. Similarly, Mr. Siphesihle Bryan Xaba laid a similar complaint against the First
Respondent. The First Respondent was untruthful to the client, stating that the
matter was still in progress when in fact it was settled, and he had failed to
account to the client and pay over to the client the settlement amount.
[12]. On 3 April 2023, the Applicant received a similar complaint from Ms. Nobahle
Maphumulo . RAF settled her claim and paid an amount of R400 000.00 into the
trust account of the First Respondent, and he failed to account to the client and
to effect payment of the settlement amount in the client's favour.

(13). There were further complaints by Benedict Refilwe Lempetse, Joyce Mbonan i,
Aranjo Makamo and Cathrien Hlonkwane. The First Respondent was instructed
to institute proceedings on their behalf, but failed to carry out such instructions,
and their claims prescribed and/or rejected. The First Respondent failed to
communicate with them.
(14). It is perhaps apposite that this Court deals at this stage with the First
Respondent's perspective of the case. The First Respondent uploaded its written
submissions on Caselines.
(15). It is noted that the First Respondent denies most of the transgressions levelled
against him but has conceded to some . He further acknowledged that he failed
to avoid trust deficits and that he misappropriated trust funds. Despite the
acknowledgement of all the above, he, however, submitted that he remains a fit
and proper person to practice as a legal practitioner and to remain on the roll of
legal practitioners.
(16]. It is contended on behalf of the First Respondent that he did not act with
dishonesty. None of the transgressions he committed reflected on his honesty
and integrity. In contrast, he admits that he used the trust funds for purposes
other than their intended use, which did not evidence dishonesty but reflected a
contravention of a rule.
[17]. It was further submitted on his behalf that only three clients were prejudiced, and
no other trust creditors were prejudiced, except for the delay in receiving their

payments. He has undertaken to reimburse the clients or the fidelity fund, any
amounts which belonged to clients but were used for other purposes. Based on
this argument, it was submitted on the First Respondent's behalf that an order to
strike off will, under these circumstances, be severe and inappropriate.
[18]. This Court is of the view that the Respondent's attitude is nonchalant to say the
least. The above is a display of a cavalier attitude to the matter and does not
accord it the seriousness it deserves.
[19). Firstly, there is the issue of the First Respondent's failure to pay his annual fees,
for which he was ordered to pay a fine of R10 ,000.00 plus the costs of the
disciplinary committee of R3 ,611.51, which remained unpaid as at the date of the
hearing of this matter. It is not stated anywhere when such would be paid, other
than that the First Respondent intends to make good the amount due as soon as
his financial circumstances allow.
[20]. The Respondent's conduct in this regard is a contravention of Rule 4.1 and 6 of
the LPC Rules, read together with clause 3.16 of the Code of Conduct.
[21]. Concerning the complaint of Ms. Zwane, the First Respondent states that he was
not the attorney dealing w ith the matter. The complaint came at a time when he
had already retrenched and most of the professional staff had already left his
employment. This, in the Court's view, demonstrates the First Respondent's
nonchalant approach to the matter. The professionals he is referring to were in
his employ, and he is responsible for their conduct. He cannot wash his hands

because he did not deal with the matter directly, but somebody else dealt with it.
He ought to have acknowledged receipt of the complaint and explained then what
he seeks to explain to this Court.
[22]. This also applies to the complaint of Lempetse. The First Respondent seeks to
rely on the fact that he was not the attorney who personally dealt with the matter.
The point is that the buck stops with him. He was the employer. He states further
that the LPC has his response, but again failed to attach a copy thereof and tell
this Court when exactly he provided his response.
[23]. This is a violation of clause 3.1 of the Code of Conduct. He failed to maintain the
highest standard of honesty and integrity. He sought to rely on the allegation that
he was not the attorney who personally dealt with the matter.
[24). About the Molane and the Mbuthu complaints, the First Respondent denies the
allegation and states that his office accounted directly to the client and there was
no basis that he should have effected transfer in the sum alleged to PJ Sebetha
Attorneys. It may be so, but professional courtesy demands that he ought to have
explained to PJ Sebetha Attorneys and the LPC , which he did not. That amounted
to professional misconduct in the Court's view.
[25]. In the Mbuthu matter, it would have been simpler for him to respond to the
Applicant and state what had transpired. To his knowledge, the complaint was
withdrawn, but he failed to attach to his papers a copy of the alleged affidavit
withdrawing the complaint.

[26]. To compound matters further, the First Respondent does not tell this Court when
exactly he accounted to the client. The reason for the cash withdrawal is also not
convincing. How that was done is not explained, and surely there would have
been bank records to support this story.
[27]. This is again a violation of clause 3.1 of the Code of Conduct and clause 16.1 in
that he failed to respond to all communications that required an answer unless
good cause for refusing an answer existed.
[28]. Xaba 's matter is also perplexing. The First Respondent's excuse in this regard is
that by the time he received this complaint, Xaba had already been paid, and he
therefore did not see the need to reply to the LPC . There was a need to explain
to the LPC to put the matter at rest.
[29]. The Maphumulo and Lekwene complaints and explanation of the First
Respondent again, display his cavalier attitude. He delayed payment of the
client's money because he was at the point where he was rolling Trust Funds. If
this does not constitute a risk to client funds, then nothing else would constitute
a risk. Trust monies are intended for specific purposes and not to be rolled at the
whim of the Legal Practitioner.
[30]. This cannot be honest conduct on the part of the First Respondent. He failed in
maintaining the highest standard of honesty and integrity.

(31]. Concerning the complaint of Mbonani, this Court agrees with the submissions of
the First Respondent. It is doubtful that when he received instructions in 2015,
the RAF would have made any offer in that year. It is, however, questionable
whether the said offer was made in 2023. The First Respondent could have easily
attached the said offer to his papers.
[32]. In the Makamo , Hlonkwane and Mojela matters, the First Respondent alleges that
he never received the said complaints and could not respond to them. He does
not address the said complaints and offer to this court any explanation other than
the allegation that he did not receive them. This again is further confirmation of
the attitude of the First Respondent to the claims he is faced with.
[33]. This also includes the complaint of Mariam Mamonyane . The First Respondent
alleged that he saw the complaint for the first time when he read the Applicant's
founding affidavit. He again states that he was not the attorney dealing with the
matter. This court did not understand that the First Respondent had partners in
his firm. It has always been the understanding of this Court that the First
Respondent was a sole practitioner and had employed professionals to assist
him.
(34]. The First Respondent admitted the allegations against him in the Sithole
complaint and on several other allegations, including that of Vinas Mkhabela.
(35]. In the matter of Mudau , he again raises the issue of rolling trust funds, and this
court has already expressed its view on the matter and need not repeat itself.

[36]. The other matters that form the subject of the complaints against the First
Respondent have been settled, and he believed that they had been withdrawn
even though he provided no documentation to that effect.
[37]. The Court does not propose to deal with the complaint by Leon JJ Van Rensburg
Attorneys and will give the First Respondent the benefit of the doubt insofar as it
is concerned.
[38]. There are so many complaints against the First Respondent, most of which the
First Respondent has not applied his mind to before this court.
[39]. In the Masinga matter, the complaint is that Masinga met a certain Ronny
Rikhotso, in the employ of the First Respondent, whom he instructed to assist
with the transfer of a certain property into his name . He paid his employee for the
services requested. Whilst it is correct that the First Respondent is not a
conveyancer, this court is of the view that it is not enough for him to state that
without further ado. One would have expected that he would either deny that he
ever had an employee by the name of Ronny Rikhotso, as alleged, or if he had
such an employee, what investigations he conducted or intends to perform in the
matter.
[40]. In the complaint of Nkosi, which is similar to that of Masinga, the First Respondent
mentions that he does not have an employee named Rikhotso. However, he goes
further and states that Nkosi was refunded his money , which begs the question?

Why , in the first place, was the money taken when he gave instructions which
required a conveyancer?
[41 ]. Again, the First Respondent lacks appreciation of the complaints laid against him.
In the Guambe matter, he conceded that he gave a belated response and further
stated that he failed to understand why this issue was raised in this matter. This
matter is raised precisely to challenge his fitness to practise as a legal
practitioner. Similarly, the same logic would apply in the matter of Tshabalala,
wherein he again responded late. Again, he gave an excuse that he was not the
attorney dealing with the matter. This excuse cannot fly in the face of the fact that
he was the employer.
[42]. In the Macandza matter, the complaint against the First Respondent is that he
failed to respond within a reasonable period, which fact made him guilty of
violating clause 16.2 of the Code of Conduct. No explanation is given in this
regard.
[43). The less said about the complaint by Smith of Carter Smith Incorporated, the
better. The First Respondent, who is a legal practitioner, failed to comply with a
court order. The reason is that he did not have money , as he had paid the capital
and the costs. To who was the money paid when his client was the curator, and
to whom was , he supposed to make the payment?
[44). In the matter involving Iris Mokgabudi, the First Respondent denies that he failed
to reply to correspondence addressed to him by the Applicant and attached a

copy of the letter to the Applicant. This begs the question why , in the other
instances where he denies that he failed to respond to the Applicant's
correspondence, he did not do the same , namely, attach copies thereof.
[45]. The First Respondent has not been able to provide a reasonable explanation for
many of the alleged transgressions other than a bare denial thereof. His denial in
a number of them is that he was not the attorney dealing with those matters, and
as such, he cannot give an explanation.
[46). This court mentioned on several occasions that the First Respondent is
nonchalant about his transgressions. To compound matters, the First
Respondent had a deficit in his trust account.
[47). Reddy reported that the First Respondent's firm's annual Statement on Trust
Accounts for the years ending 28 February 2022 and 28 February 2021, wh ich
were submitted to the App licant together with an auditor's report, reflected a nil
balance on surplus and or deficit. However, his investigations appear to indicate
a trust deficit of R2 ,581, 103.30, with outstanding payments to Sithole, Seatile,
Sekgobela, Yende, Dlamini, Mathebula and Malope. The Total trust creditors
stood at R2 , 680,395.00, and the trust bank balance, as at 28 February 2021 was
R99 , 291.70.
[48). The trust position as at 30 June 2021 was a deficit of R756 , 368.40. This,
according to the Applicant, is vastly different to the trust position reported in the
attorneys' annual statement on trust account for the year 28 February 2022.

[49]. Reddy opined that the First Respondent intentionally misrepresented the firm's
trust position to the Applicant to obtain a Fidelity Fund certificate.
[50]. The findings indicate that the firm had a significant trust deficit during the 2021
and 2022 financial years, which resulted in delays in effecting payments to trust
creditors, meaning that no reliance can be placed on the audit reports for the
years 28 February 2021 and February 2022.
[51]. The conduct of the First Respondent contravened several provisions of the Legal
Practice Act, the LPC Rules and the Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners and
some have already been referred to above. Concerning the trust deficit, he not
only failed to report the deficit to the Applicant but also misrepresented it in the
audit report that was submitted to the Applicant.
(52]. This court agrees w ith the submissions of the Applicant that, considering the
totality of the First Respondent's infractions, there is no argument that his conduct
is dishonourable, unprofessional and unworthy of a legal practitioner.
(53]. The First Respondent's conduct is of such a degree that he cannot be a fit and
proper person to practice as a legal practitioner.
[54]. The issue then for this Court is whether, in the circumstances, it is to exercise its
discretion to remove the First Respondent's name from the roll of legal
practitioners or that he be suspended from practice as a legal practitioner.

[55]. A legal practitioner must scrupulously comply with the provisions of the Legal
Practice Act, the Attorneys Act and the Rules for the Attorneys Profession,
especially with the money of a client which is placed into his/her custody and
control.
[56]. The First Respondent, in his own words, used trust monies for his own needs
when he encountered financial problems. In his own words, he began rolling his
trust account funds, which posed a risk for the clients.
[57]. Trust money does not form part of the assets of a legal practitioner. The very
essence of a trust fund is the absence of risk and the confidence created thereby.
The unjustifiable handling of trust money is untenable and not only frustrates the
legal requirements relating to trust money but also undermines the principle that
a trust account is entirely safe in respect of funds held therein by a legal
practitioner on behalf of another person.1
[58]. Legal practitioners must always prefer the interest of their clients above their own
and must exercise the highest degree of good faith in their dealings with their
clients.
11 Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA) at 51 B-1; Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope vs
Buddricks 2003 (2) SA 11 (SCA) at 13 I and 14 A to B; Malan v The Law Society of the Northern
Provinces (568/2007) [2008] ZASCA 90 (12/09/2008) at [4 -9] 28 Law Society Transvaal vs Mathews ,
supra at 393 I-J; Olivier vs Die Kaapse Balie-Raad 1972(3) SA 485(A) at 496 F-G; Summerley vs Law
Society Northern Provinces 2006(5) SA 613(SCA) at 615 BF ; Malan v The Law Society of the Northern
Provinces (568/2007) [2008) ZASCA 90 (12/09/2008) at [9] 29 Law Society Transvaal vs Mathews , supra
at 393 I-J; Olivier vs Die Kaapse Balie-Raad 1972(3) SA 485(A ) at 496 F-G; Summerley vs Law Society
Northern Provinces 2006(5) SA 613(SCA) at 615 BF ; Malan v The Law Society of the Northern Provinces
(568/2007) [2008] ZASCA 90 (12/09/2008) at [9].

(59]. The image and standing of the profession are judged by the conduct and
reputation of all its members , and to maintain this confidence and trust, all
members of the profession must exhibit the highest qualities of honesty and
integrity. The law expects from a legal practitioner the highest possible degree of
good faith in his dealings with his client, which always implies that his submissions
and representations to the client must be accurate, honest and frank.
(60]. The First Respondent failed to meet this high standard of a legal practitioner, and
to compound matters further, he has not been candid with the court in certain
instances and did not take the court into his confidence. He would not take
responsibility and sought to shift the blame, stating that he was not the attorney
dealing with those matters. However, he was a sole practitioner and employed
professionals to assist him. He is responsible for their conduct in the discharge
of their duties towards his clients.
(61]. In the circumstances, the following order is made:
1. The name of Arnold Mkhabela (hereinafter referred to as the "First
Respondent") is removed from the roll of legal practitioners.
2. The first Respondent is to deliver his certificate of enrolment as a legal
practitioner to the Registrar of this Court.
3. In the event of the First Respondent failing to comply with the terms of this
order above within two weeks from the date of this order, the sheriff of the

district in which the certificate is, is authorised and directed to take possession
of the certificate and to hand it to the Registrar of this Court.
4. The Respondents are prohibited from handling or operating on any trust
accounts as detailed in paragraph 5 hereof.
5. The person who occupies the office of the director of the halting provincial
office of the applicant, for the time being be appointed as curator bonus to
administer and control the trust accounts of the respondents including
accounts relating to insolvent and deceased estates and any deceased state
and any state under curatorship connected with the first respondents practice
as a legal practitioner and including also the separate banking accounts
opened and kept by respondents at the bank in the Republic of South Africa
in terms of section 86(1) & (2) of Act No. 28 of 2014 and/or any separate
savings or interest bearing accounts as contemplated by section 86(3) and/or
section 86(4) of Act No.28 of 2014, in which monies from such trust banking
accounts have been invested by virtue of the provisions of the said sub­
sections or in which monies in any manner have been deposited or credited
(the said accounts being hereinafter referred to as the trust accounts), with
the following duties:
5.1 Immediately to take possession of the Respondents' accounting records,
records, files and documents as referred to in paragraph 6and subject to
the approval of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control (the
Fund") to sign all forms and generally to operate upon the trust accounts,

but only to such extent and for such purpose as may be necessary to bring
to completion current transactions in which the Respondents were acting
at the date of this order.
5.2subject to the approval and control of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund
Board of Control and where monies had been paid incorrectly and
unlawfully from the undermentioned trust accounts, to recover and receive
and, if necessary in the interests of persons having lawful claims upon the
trust account(s) and/or against the Respondents in respect of monies held,
received and/or invested by the Respondents in terms of section 86(1) &
(2) and/or section 86(3) and/or section 86(4) of Act No 28 of 2014
(hereinafter referred to as trust monies), to take any legal proceedings
which may be necessary for the recovery of money which may be due to
such persons in respect of incomplete transactions, if any, in which the
Respondents were and may still have been concerned and to receive such
monies and to pay the same to the credit of the trust account(s);
5.3to ascertain from the Respondents' accounting records the names of all
persons on whose account the Respondents appear to hold or to have
received trust monies (hereinafter referred to as trust creditors) and to call
upon the First Respondent to furnish him, within 30 (thirty) days of the date
of service of this order or such further period as he may agree to in writing,
with the names , addresses and amounts due to all trust creditors;

5.4 to call upon such trust creditors to furnish such proof, information and/or
affidavits as he may require to enable him, acting in consultation with, and
subject to the requirements of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board
of Control, to determine whether any such trust creditor has a claim in
respect of monies in the trust account(s) of the Respondents and, if so, the
amount of such claim;
5.5to admit or reject, in whole or in part, subject to the approval of the Legal
Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control, the claims of any such trust
creditor or creditors, without prejudice to such trust creditor's or creditors'
right of access to the civil courts;
5.6 having determined the amounts which he considers are lawfully due to
trust creditors, to pay such claims in full but subject always to the approval
of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control;
5. 7 in the event of there being any surplus in the trust account(s) of the
Respondents after payment of the admitted claims of all trust creditors in
full, to utilise such surplus to settle or reduce (as the case may be), firstly,
any claim of the fund in terms of section 86(5) of Act No 28 of 2014 in
respect of any interest therein referred to and, secondly, without prejudice
to the rights of the creditors of the Respondents, the costs, fees and

expenses referred to in paragraph 1 O of this order, or such portion thereof
as has not already been separately paid by the Respondents to the
Applicant, and, if there is any balance left after payment in full of all such
claims, costs, fees and expenses, to pay such balance, subject to the
approval of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control, to the
First Respondent, if he is solvent, or, if the First Respondent is insolvent,
to the trustee(s) of the First Respondent's insolvent estate;
5.8 in the event of there being insufficient trust monies in the trust banking
account(s) of the Respondents, in accordance with the available
documentation and information, to pay in full the claims of trust creditors
who have lodged claims for repayment and whose claims have been
approved, to distribute the credit balance(s) which may be available in the
trust banking account(s) amongst the trust creditors alternatively to pay
the balance to the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund;
5. 9 subject to the approval of the chairman of the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity
Fund Board of Control, to appoint nominees or representatives and/or
consult with and/or engage the services of legal practitioners, counsel,
accountants and/or any other persons, where considered necessary, to
assist him in carrying out his duties as curator; and

5. 1 O to render from time to time, as curator, returns to the Legal
Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control showing how the trust
account(s) of the Respondents has/have been dealt with, until such time
as the board notifies him that he may regard his duties as curator as
terminated.
6. That the Respondents immediately deliver the accounting records, records,
files and documents containing particulars and information relating to:
6. 1 any mon ies received, held or paid by the Respondents for or on account
of any person while practising as a legal practitioner;
6.2any monies invested by the Respondents in terms of section 86(3) and/or
section 86(4) of Act No 28 of 2014;
6.3any interest on monies so invested which was paid over or credited to the
Respondents;
6.4 any estate of a deceased person or an insolvent estate or an estate under
curatorship administered by the Respondents, whether as executor or
trustee or curator or on behalf of the executor, trustee or curator;

6.Sany insolvent estate administered by the Respondents as trustee or on
behalf of the trustee in terms of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936;
6.6any trust administered by the Respondents as trustee or on behalf of the
trustee in terms of the Trust Properties Control Act, No 57 of 1988;
6.7any company liquidated in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act,
No 61 of 1973 read together with the provisions of the Companies Act, No
71 of 2008, administered by the Respondents as or on behalf of the
liquidator;
6.8 any close corporation liquidated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69
of 1984, administered by the Respondents as or on behalf of the liquidator;
and
6.9the First Respondent's practice as a legal practitioner of this Honourable
Court, to the curator appointed in terms of paragraph 5 hereof, provided
that, as far as such accounting records, records, files and documents are
concerned, the Respondents shall be entitled to have reasonable access
to them but always subject to the supervision of such curator or his
nominee.

7. That should the Respondents fail to comp ly with the provisions of the
preceding paragraph of this order on service thereof upon him or after a return
by the person entrusted with the service thereof that he has been unable to
effect service thereof on the Respondents (as the case may be}, the sheriff
for the district in which such accounting records, records, files and documents
are, be empowered and directed to search for and to take possession thereof
wherever they may be and to deliver them to such curator.
8. That the curator shall be entitled to:
8.1 hand over to the persons entitled thereto all such records, files and
documents provided that a satisfactory written undertaking has been
received from such persons to pay any amount, either determined on
taxation or by agreement, in respect of fees and disbursements due to the
firm;
8.2 require from the persons referred to in paragraph 8.1 to provide any such
documentation or information which he may consider relevant in respect
of a claim or possible or anticipated claim, against him and/or the
Respondents and/or the Respondents' clients and/or fund in respect of
money and/or other property entrusted to the Respondents provided that
any person entitled thereto shall be granted reasonable access thereto
and shall be permitted to make copies thereof.
8.3 publish this order or an abridged version thereof in any newspaper he
considers appropriate; and

8.4wind-up of the First Respondent's practice.
9. That the First Respondent be and is hereby removed from office as:
9.1 executor of any estate of which the First Respondent has been appointed
in terms of section 54(1 )(a)(v) of the Administration of Estates Act, No 66
of 1965 or the estate of any other person referred to in section 72(1 );
9.2curator or guardian of any minor or other person's property in terms of
section 72( 1) read with section 54( 1 )(a)(v) and section 85 of the
Administration of Estates Act, No 66 of 1965;
9.3trustee of any insolvent estate in terms of section 59 of the Insolvency Act,
No 24 of 1936;
9.4 liquidator of any company in terms of section 379(2) read with 379(e) of
the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 and read together with the provisions
of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008;
9.5trustee of any trust in terms of section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control
Act, No 57 of 1988;
9.6Iiquidator of any close corporation appointed in terms of section 74 of the
Close Corporation Act, No 69 of 1984; and
9. 7 administrator appointed in terms of Section 7 4 of the Magistrates Court
Act, No 32 of 1944.
10. That the Respondents be and are hereby directed:
10.1 to pay, in terms of section 87(2) of Act No . 28 of 2014, the reasonable
costs of the inspection of the accounting records of the Respondents;

10.2 to pay the reasonable fees of the auditor engaged by Applicant;
10.3 to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the curator, including
travelling time;
10.4 to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of any person(s) consulted
and/or engaged by the curator as aforesaid;
10.5 to pay the expenses relating to the publication of this order or an
abbreviated version thereof; and
10.6 to pay the costs of this application on an attorney-and-client scale.
11. That if there are any trust funds available the Respondents shall within 6 (six)
months after having been requested to do so by the curator, or within such
longer period as the curator may agree to in writing, shall satisfy the curator,
by means of the submission of taxed bills of costs or otherwise, of the amount
of the fees and disbursements due to the First Respondent in respect of his
former practice, and should he fail to do so, he shall not be entitled to recover
such fees and disbursements from the curator without prejudice, however, to
such rights (if any) as he may have against the trust creditor(s) concerned for
payment or recovery thereof.
12. That a certificate issued by a director of the Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund
shall constitute prima facie proof of the curator's costs, and that the Registrar
be authorised to issue a writ of execution on the strength of such certificate in
order to collect the curator's costs.

13. The respondents are to pay the costs of this appeal on an attorney and client
cost.
I agree,
T Nyandeni
f the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file
of this matter on CaseLines.
For the applicant: M Moolmaan
Instructed by: Damons Margadie Richardson Attorneys
For the defendant: D Mstweni
Instructed by: Frans Mashele Incorporated