SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 004181/2025
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
Date: 15 August 2025
SIGNATURE
In the ex parte application of:
MTHOKOZISI ALPHEUS SKOSANA Applicant
(ID 9[...])
JUDGEMENT
MOOKI J
1 The application first came before the Court on 31 July 2025. The Court made
the following order at the time:
1 The matter is postponed to 12 August 2025 to serve before Honourable
Mr Justice Mooki.
2 The applicant is to serve the order on:
2.1 Mr Donald Phetla of Phetlha Attorneys.
2.2 Mr Nyaziwe Joseph Mnguni of NJ Mnguni Inc.
3 Each of Mr Phetla and Mr Mnguni are directed to file affidavits,
indicating:
3.1 The content and scope of their discussions with the applicant,
pertaining to this application;
3.2 Their signing of documents referred to in the application.
4 The applicant is to serve the whole record of the application on each of
Mr Phetla and Mr Mnguni.
5 The affidavits referred to in paragraph 3 must be filed before 12 August
2025.
6 The applicant is to serve this order on the Legal Practice Council,
Gauteng.
2 The order was necessitated by events that unfolded during the hearing on 31
July 2025. The applicant is a candidate legal practitioner, serving articles under Mr N
J Mnguni of NG Mnguni Inc. He sought relief that he be permitted to join the periods
for which he served his practical vocational training.
3 The first period is recorded as pertaining to the time when the applicant was
under the supervision of Moraswe Attorneys. Thi s period was to be joined with the
period in which the applicant served articles at NJ Mnguni Attorneys Inc.
4 The notice of motion states that “the affidavits of Mthokozi Alpheus Skosana
(the Applicant herein), Josephine Boitumelo Moraswa and Nyaziwe Jos eph Mnguni
(hereinafter referred to as the “Principal”) will be used in support of this application
together with the annexures thereto.” The notice of motion is dated 9 January 2025,
with “Phetla Attorneys Inc” as attorneys of record.
5 The applicant moved the application in person. The Court pointed out several
aspects to the application and raised concerns with the applicant. The applicant
confirmed that the e -mail address and the mobile number associated with the
address for the attorneys as shown on t he notice of motion were his details. The
applicant agreed that a person calling the mobile number would be entitled to believe
that that number was of a lawyer at Phetla attorneys. The applicant informed the
Court that he referenced Phetla Attorneys as th e attorneys of record should an
enquiry be raised. The applicant told the Court that Mr Phetla agreed to the use of
his firm’s address as attorneys of record.
6 The Court drew the applicant’s attention to the confirmatory affidavit in the
name of Mr Mngun i. The Court mentioned that the signature above Mr Mnguni’s
name appeared to differ from another document that was also said to have been
signed by Mr Mnguni. The applicant informed the Court that Mr Mnguni did sign the
confirmatory affidavit.
7 The Court, with further reference to the confirmatory affidavit in the name of
Mr Mnguni, enquired why the document was commissioned in Kwa Mhlanga,
Mpumalanga, when Mr Mnguni practised as an attorney in Pretoria. The applicant
told the Court that Mr Mnguni signed the document and then gave the applicant the
document. The applicant then took the document with him, and had the document
commissioned at a police station in Kwa Mhlanga. The applicant agreed that Mr
Mnguni did not appear before a commissioner of oaths.
8 Mr Mnguni and Mr Phetla prepared affidavits as directed in the court order.
They also attended in Court when the matter was called on 12 August. Mr
Masweneng appeared as counsel. Mr Masweneng informed the Court that the
applicant was withdrawing his appl ication. The Court indicated that it wished to be
addressed on issues raised in the previous sitting.
9 Mr Phetla said the following in his affidavit. He shares office equipment with
Mr Mnguni. Both Mr Mnguni and the applicant have access to Mr Phetla’s o ffice. Mr
Phetla is aware that the applicant is serving articles under Mr Mnguni. The applicant
Phetla is aware that the applicant is serving articles under Mr Mnguni. The applicant
told him that the applicant needed to join the previous articles with the current one;
the applicant told him that the papers before court were in draft and sho uld have
been referred to Mr Mnguni, his principal, for approval. Mr Phetla was unaware of the
errors in the application. He also was unaware of the hearing date.
10 Mr Mnguni said the following in his affidavit. He is the applicant’s principal. He
shares office resources with Phetla Attorneys. The applicant has access to those
resources. The applicant approached him with a draft document for an application in
relation to the applicant’s previous articles. He told the applicant that the application
was unn ecessary: the applicant had not completed his board exams and that the
applicant could incorporate joining the period of articles in the application for
admission. He was unaware of the application. The applicant did not give him the
application for his review. The applicant instead received misguided legal advice that
the applicant can approach the court in person and that Mr Mnguni’s intervention
was unnecessary. Mr Mnguni was unaware of the application. He apologised for the
inconvenience and sought that the application be withdrawn.
11 The applicant deposed to confirmatory affidavit in relation to Mr Mnguni’s
affidavit. The applicant added that Mr Mnguni did not authorise the application and
that the applicant received misguided legal opinion. He reques ted that the
application be withdrawn.
12 The Court sought clarification on several points from each of Mr Phetla and
Mr Mnguni.
13 Mr Phetla denied allowing his firm to be shown as the attorneys in the notice
of motion. Mr Mnguni denied discussing or pr eparing a confirmatory affidavit in
support of the application.
14 The import of the order by the Court, and the Court requesting the two
attorneys to submit affidavits, is best illustrated by the exchange between the Court
and the applicant on 31 July 2025. That exchange is reproduced below.
PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 31 JULY 2025 [ 11 : 58 ]
COURT: Mr Skhosana?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Right. Which is your matter, Mr Skhosana?
MR SKHOSANA: Matter 97 on the roll.
COURT: 97 ?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: [ Indistinct]. Right, are you the applicant?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: You are doing your own application?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: You, on the papers you are still serving articles?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: I see. There are a number of things that the Court needs
clarification on. Mr Mnguni, is that your principal now?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Where does he practice law?
MR SKHOSANA: [ Indistinct] here in Pretoria central.
COURT: But then why was his affidavit [ indistinct] in Kwa Mhlanga if his
practice is in Pretoria?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, he signed it , but I reside in Kwa Mhlanga, so I left
with it from Kwa Mhlanga so went to commission it at the police station.
COURT: Ja, but when reading the [ indistinct].
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: [ Indistinct] repeat what you just said to the Court?
MR SKHOSANA: He signed the document, we were together, the affidavit,
the confirmatory affidavit, however I did not, we did not commission it , so I left
with it and I went home with it then I , on the date it was commissioned I
commissioned it at the Kwa Mhlanga Police Station without his presence.
COURT: [ Indistinct] does not quite make sense to me [ indistinct]. Right.
Section 6 , page 29 , if you could go there.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Just wait for the system to come up. Right, section 6 , page 29 .
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: This i s put up as a confirmatory affidavit by Mr Mnguni?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Now he says he practices from Pretoria.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: And then on page 32 , 6 , 32 , section 6 , page 32 .
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: The document is signed.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Who signed here?
MR SKHOSANA: Mr Mnguni himself.
COURT: The date reads that, it says her e that this was do ne before me
at Kwa Mhlanga on 14 January 2025 .
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: But as I understood what you said not too long ago, in fact Mr
Mnguni was not in Kwa Mhlanga, you took the document with you?
MR SKHOSANA : Yes, at the time when he signed I was still residing in
Pretoria, he signed here in December, so I went with them home because I
was still, at the time I was residing here in Pretoria, so he signed the
documents, I left with them to Kwa Mhlanga. So when I was preparing the
application, I took the documents and mine also to go and commission them
at Kwa Mhlanga Police Station.
COURT: But it was not your, it is not your affidavit.
MR SKHOSANA: Correct, M' Lord.
COURT: [ Indistinct].
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: It is your principal's affidavit.
MR SKHOSANA: Correct, M' Lord.
COURT: Now based on what you are saying to the Court, it was not your
principal who appeared before a commissioner of oaths.
MR SKHOSANA: Correct, M' Lord.
COURT: It was you.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: Well [ indistinct] it was you, the fact it your principal was not ...
[intervenes]
MR SKHOSANA: Before the commissioner.
COURT: Before the commissioner of oaths.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: But why is that not mentioned to the Court?
MR SKHOSANA: At the time I did not think it was going to be problem,
however now I see that it is a problem.
COURT: How could that not have been a problem?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: When as a person aspir ing to enter the law you meet with Mr
Mnguni.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: The document is prepared, you [indistinct] based on what you
tell the Court, you then leave for Kwa Mhlanga and then have the document
commissioned there.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord, that was that case.
COURT: That does not make sense to me because it is not your affidavit.
Why would Mr Mnguni give you a document that on the face of it is his
affidavit and give you that document for you to go and [ indistinct]
commissioner of oath? Why would he do that?
MR SKHOSANA: I, it would not, at the time I think that was not the intention
of him giving that document and I think the mistake was my side.
COURT: That still does not make sense.
MR SKHOSANA: Correct, correct, M' Lord.
COURT: Why would you take a document that is in someone else' s
name.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Your principal on the face of it , you then go to, you leave
Pretoria where there are a million and one attorneys.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: The document does get commissioned before the commissioner
of oath in Pretoria and then it gets commissioned in ... [ intervenes]
MR SKHOSANA: In another province.
COURT: Your submission to the Court, Nkomasi.
MR SKHOSANA: Kwa Mhlanga, M' Lord.
COURT: Kwa Mhlanga.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: That makes no sense to me.
MR SKHOSANA: Quite correct, M' Lord.
COURT: Now, why, you may have answered this, but I am still a bit
unclear. So you are in Pretoria with Mr Mnguni.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: This document is prepared.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: He does not sign it .
MR SKHOSANA: He signed it .
COURT: He signs the document?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, he signed the document. They were with other
[ indistinct] documents, so I gave him the d ocuments, he signed them and
then I took the documents back home and then I went to the commissioner,
Kwa Mhlanga Police Station to have them commissioned.
COURT: So Mr Mnguni signed this document.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord, he signed it .
COURT: And he signed it in Pretoria.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord. Before I continue, M' Lord, is there, I just
want some clarity, is it going to create a problem for Mr Mnguni?
COURT: Well you are moving the application. I am trying to
understand your case.
MR SKHOSANA: Okay.
COURT: But you are telling the Court that Mr Mnguni signed this
document?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, he sig ned it .
COURT: He signed it in Pretoria.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: You then took the document and went to Kwa Mhlanga with the
document?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: And then you with the document signed by Mr Mnguni got the
commissioner of oaths to sign the document at the police station?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: And I just want you to keep to two parts of the document at the
same time. I will tell you where to go just now. So on page 32, section 6,
page 32 , you are telling the Court that Mr Mnguni signed here?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Okay. Then go to page 28 . Are you there?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: As I understand this is the contract between you and Mr Mnguni?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: And Mr Mnguni was to be your principal?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: Now on page 28 there is a signature under principal.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Is that Mr Mnguni's signature?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: This signature is not the same as the one on page 28, on page
32 .
MR SKHOSANA : They are, for my, they are similar, M' Lord. Unless maybe
because it is small, I do not know.
COURT: Alright. But you are telling this Court that Mr Mnguni signed on
page 28 ?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord, he signed.
COURT: The application, was it served on the LPC?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, there are LPC stamps.
COURT: Pardon?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, the LPC stamped, I gave them the documents.
COURT: But on section 13 , page 4 , there is a stamp of the LPC. Is that
what you are referring to as service on the LPC?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Who are Phetla Attorneys?
MR SKHOSANA: I am using them f or address, M' Lord.
COURT: Pardon?
MR SKHOSANA: I am only using them for the address.
COURT: I do not understand what is happening ?
MR SKHOSANA: For the address in Pretoria, I am only using them for the
address in Pretoria because, I mean I am residing in Kwa Mhlanga.
COURT: I do not understand what you mean by you only use Phetla
Attorneys for an address in Pretoria. What does that mean?
MR SKHOSANA: At the time of doing the application I thought maybe it
was going to be a problem that I am using my address from at him while the
application is for Pretoria.
COURT: So the notice of motion would be issued in the hand as it were of
an attorney?
MR SKHOSANA: Come again?
COURT: The notice of motion.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Would be issued in the hand of an attorney?
MR SKHOSANA: What do you mean when you say issued in the hands of
an attorney?
COURT: When one sees a notice of motion.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, yes.
COURT: It will have on it an attorney, the name of an attorney with the
address of the attorney.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: And that means that the person who is mentioned there is the
attorney in the [indistinct].
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, correct, M' Lord.
COURT: Is that the case?
MR SKHOSANA: No.
COURT: So Phetla Attorneys are not attorneys of record?
MR SKHOSANA: No, no, they are not attorneys of record.
COURT: Then why did you report them suggesting that they are attorneys
of record?
MR SKHOSANA: I thought, I wrote them in the matter of, like when we
were doing, like when you are Pretoria but you want, you have a matter in
Cape Town you will use a correspondent, I thought maybe it related to this
application that I will use an address that is in Pretoria because the matter
was in Pretoria.
COURT: Phetla Attorneys aware that they are mentioned in your application?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord, they are very much aware.
COURT: They are aware?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: Who at Phetla Attorneys did you discuss this arrangement with?
MR SKHOSANA: The director himself, Mr Donald Phetla.
COURT: What did you discuss with Mr Phetla insofar as his firm' s
address being mentioned in the notice of motion, what did you discuss?
MR SKHOSANA: It was only the issue of address that I am going to use his
address that in the event that the LPC wants to send me something, because
his office is in Pretoria they can direct it to his offices.
COURT: So are you telling this Court that you had a discussion with Mr
Phetla.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: And that the two of you agreed.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: That you will use his firm's address as the address to use should
the need arise by the LPC?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, for, in the event of exchanging documents.
COURT: Correct.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: So that was agreed between you and Mr Phetla.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: Is that what you are telling the Court?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: The notice of motion, there is an e -mail that is mentioned under
the section dealing with the address for the attorneys. That appears to be your
Gmail e-mail address. So that is your personal e-mail address?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord. With the number phone underneath is also
mine.
COURT: And the mobile number that is mentioned there, whose mobile
number is that?
MR SKHOSANA: It is mine.
COURT: Your number?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: Now that being so, as fa r as the mobile number i s concerned,
you appreciate that, say for example if the LPC wanted to put a call through to
that mobile number, the official at the LPC would take t hat number to be the
telephone number at Phetla Attorneys.
MR SKHOSANA: No, mine.
COURT: But how would they know that it was your number and not the
number at Phetla Attorneys?
MR SKHOSANA: As the applicant, I would say as the only person who is
bringing the application before the Court by himself, I think ... [ intervenes]
COURT: Yes, but the address.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: That is certified, it is not your address, is the address of the
attorneys. So why would a person calling that number ... [ intervenes]
MR SKHOSANA: Get to find me at the end line.
COURT: Put a call to that number and that the call would not be a call to
Phetla Attorneys but to you, how would any person know that?
MR SKHOSANA: They would not know.
COURT: Please bear with me. Mr Skhosana, it is Skhosana?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes.
COURT: The Court is going to make the following order.
MR SKHOSANA: Okay.
COURT: One, the matter is postponed to 12 August 2025 to serve before
Mr Justice Mooki. Two, the application is to serve the order on, 2.1 , Mr
Donald Phetla of Phetla Attorneys, 2.2 , Mr [Indistinct] Joseph Mnguni of NJ
Mnguni Incorporated. Three, each of Mr Phet la and Mr Mnguni are directed
to file affidavits including indicating, 3.1 , the content and scope of their
discussions with the applicant pertaining to this application, 3.2 , their signing
of documents referred to in the application. Four, the applicant is to serve the
whole record of the application on each of Mr Phetla and Mr Mnguni. Five,
the affidavits referred to in paragraph 3 must be filed before 12 August 2025 .
Six, the application is to serve this order on the LPC Gauteng. That is the
order of the Court.
MR SKHOSANA: Okay. I do not quite follow to be honest. I understand you
said the draft order that, sorry M' Lord, I was already frustrated.
COURT: I do not follow what you are saying ?
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, in terms of the judgment that you read into record.
COURT: The order, yes.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes. I did not follow it .
COURT: It has been read into the record.
MR SKHOSANA: Okay.
COURT: You asked for the order to be [indistinct] for you. It is absolutely
crucial that the order be complied with.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Because this matter is going to come back to court and it will
come back to me.
MR SKHOSANA: Yes, M' Lord.
COURT: Just give me a second. Yes, you will speak with my clerk after
the Court has adjourned and she will explain to you how the order will be
made available on [indistinct] see to it that [indistinct]. That is the order
[indistinct].
MR SKHOSANA: Noted, M' Lord.
MATTER POSTPONED TO 12 AUGUST 2025
COURT ADJOURNS: [12:32]
15 The applicant misrepresented facts to the Court on 31 August 2025. Mr Phetla
did not agree to his firm being reflected in the notice of motion as the applicant’s
attorneys. He did not discuss the application with the applicant. Mr Mngudi did not
sign a confirmatory affidavit. The applicant, in moving the application, was prepared
to have the court accept Mr Mnguni having deposed to a confirmatory affidavit. It
was only on the questioning by the Court that Mr Skosana admitted that Mr Mnguni
did no depose to a confirmatory affidavit. The applicant was adamant that Mr Mnguni
signed the document.
16 The applicant is serving articles, with a view to becoming an attorney. “The
attorney's profession is an honourable profession, which demands complete honesty
and i ntegrity from its members.” 1 The applicant knowingly misrepresented facts to
the Court. He now seeks to withdraw his application. The withdrawal is sought only
because he has been exposed for having sought to mislead the Court.
17 I make the following order:
(1) The application is dismissed.
(2) The Registrar is directed to bring this judgement to the attention of the
Legal Practice Council, Gauteng, for the council to consider such steps as
are required of the council given the findings made by the Court.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearance:
On behalf of the applicant: M Masweneng
Instructed by: Phetla Attorneys and NM Mnguni Inc.
Date of Hearing: 31 July 2025, 12 August 2025
Date of Judgement: 15 August 2025
1 Summerley v Law Society of the Northern Provinces 2006 (5) SA 613 (SCA), para 23