IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) Reportable: Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other judges: Yfs/No
(3) Revised/Not Revised
Date: 28 August 2025
Signature:
In the matter between:
THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
And
PRUDENCE CHILWANE
ZONICA LEANDA-MARSHA VILAKAZI (MTSHALI)
MTSHALI CHILWANE INCORPORATED
CASE NO : 067274/2024
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA, J
[1] In June 2024, the Applicant launched an urgent application to suspend the First and
Second Respondents, or alternatively, that they be struck from the roll of legal
practitioners.
[2] On 11 July 2024, the Respondents consented to the granting of a rule nisi
suspending the First and Second Respondents, with the return date set for 12
November 2024.
[3] On 12 November 2024, the rule nisi was extended to 29 July 2025. Thereafter, on
27 June 2025, the Respondents complied with the Applicant's final request for
documentation and submitted the external audit report.
[4] On 29 July 2025, when the matter was heard counsel for both Respondents
subm itted to this Court that the First Respondent would accept any sanction
imposed by the Court.
[5] In respect of the Second Respondent, counsel submitted that she had played a
minor role in the allegations and contraventions, she had no knowledge of what the
First Respondent was doing.
[6] Counsel submitted further that the Respondents admit the allegations and
contraventions contained in the Applicant's affidavit.
[7] In the discussion between the parties, it became apparent that the trust deficit, by
the Respondents' own admission, amounted to R6 254 074,50 (Six Million Two
2
Hundred and Fifty-Four Thousand and Seventy-Four Rand , and Fifty Cents). This
is confirmed in the Respondents' Answering Affidavit by the First Respondent.
[8] A total amount owed to the Trust Creditors amounted to R7 279 924,39 (Seven
Million Two Hundred and Seventy-Nine Thousand Nine-Hundred and Twenty-Four
Rand and Thirty-Nine Cents).
[9] Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the First and Second Respondents' conduct
falls within the grounds for removal from the roll of legal practitioners as outlined in
Section 31 of the Legal Practice Act.1 It was submitted that the Respondents are
unfit to continue practising as attorneys by reason of their failure to maintain proper
trust account records, which constitutes a serious breach of their fiduciary duties as
attorneys.
[1 O] Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Second Respondent cannot be separated
from the First Respondent regarding the different roles they might have played in
the mismanagement of clients' funds.
[11] In this regard, counsel placed reliance on the landmark decision in Limpopo
Provincial Council of the South African Legal Practice Council v Chueu Incorporated
Attorneys and others (Chueu Incorporated Attorneys). 2
[12] The Respondents have been practising without Fidelity Fund Certificates since
2024. Counsel for the Respondents did not dispute that they continued to practise
notwithstanding their suspension from the roll of practising legal practitioners.
[13] The offending conduct must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities. In this
matter before the Court, the Respondents have admitted to the misconduct. This is
the first stage of the enquiry.
1 28 of 2014.
2 (459/22) [2023) ZA SCA 112 (26 July 2023).
3
[14] Rule 54.19 of the South African Legal Practice Council Rules reads as follows:3
"Every partner of a firm, and every director of a Juristic entity referred to in ....
section 34(2)(b) of the Act, will be responsible for ensuring that the provisions of
the Act and of those Rules relating to trust accounts of the firm are complied with".
[15] The second enquiry is to determine whether the First and Second Respondents are
fit and proper persons to continue practising as legal practitioners.4
[16] The third and final stage of enquiry is to determine, having regard to all the
circumstances, whether the Respondents should be removed from the roll of legal
practitioners or suspended from practice for a specific period.
[17] The SCA in Chueu Incorporated Attorneys5 stated the following:
"[26) Every director has a fiduciary duty towards the company of which it is a
director. To plead ignorance of financial matters, when faced with allegations of
misappropriation, does not absolve a director. It has been emphasised over the
years that legal practitioners cannot escape liability by contending that they had
no responsibility for the keeping of the books of account or the control and
administration of the trust account. As this court stated in Hepple v Law Society
of the Northern Provinces, for an attorney to explain trust deficits on the grounds
that he or she had no involvement in the financial affairs of the firm 'is no defence
at all'.
[27) Abdication of responsibilities does not absolve legal practitioners of their
duties. As far back as Incorporated Law Society, Transvaal v Kand Others, the
court cautioned attorneys who attempted to excuse their conduct on the basis
3 GG 41781 20 July 2018 176. Legal Practice Act, rules and regulations came into effect on 1 Nove m ber 2018.
4 Jasat v Natal Law Society 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA ) at para 10.
5 See above n.3 at para 26-27. See also South African Legal Practice Council v Maree and Others (4309/2024) [2024]
ZAFSHC 352(31 October 2024) and H epple v Law Society of the Northern Provinces [2014] ZASCA 75 [2014) 3 All SA
408 SCA at para 21 .
4
that they were responsible for other work in the firm, and did not concern
themselves with the books of account .... "
[18] Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Chueu Incorporated Attorneys6
judgment referred to above concerned suspension rather than removal. This Court,
with respect, disagrees. The judgment, in the Court's view, was about the fiduciary
duty irrespective of either suspension or removal.
[19] In Chueu Incorporated Attorneys, 7 the Court further stated that it is not a defence for
an attorney to plead that they had no involvement in the financial affairs of the firm.
[20] Furthermore, in terms of Rule 54.36,8 the Second Respondent was required to
report to the council any dishonest or irregular conduct on the part of a trust account
practitioner, which she failed to do. All directors of the firm have a duty to acquaint
themselves with the firm's accounting and financial affairs.
[21] In the Court's view, the Second Respondent also owed a fiduciary duty to the legal
practice firm and cannot be exonerated from the misconduct of the First
Respondent.
[22] I find that the First and Second Respondents, in dealing with the Public's funds, the
Respondents did not act in good faith and were neither honest nor frank.
[23] In light of having misappropriated trust funds and the lack of adherence for a court
order, the Court is of the view that the Respondents are no longer fit and proper
persons to remain on the roll of legal practitioners.
6 See above n.3 at para 26-27.
7 See above n 3 at para 26-27.
8 See above n.4.
5
[24) I am satisfied that the Legal Practice Council has sufficiently established that the
First and Second Respondents' misconduct justifies an order of striking them off the
roll of attorneys.
[25] In the result, the following order is made:
1 . The First and Second Respondents are struck from the roll of legal practitioners.
2. Respondents must pay the costs of this application on Scale C.
D. MAKHOBAJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
M. LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or their legal
representatives by email and by being uploaded onto CaseLines. The hand-down date is
deemed to be 28 August 2025.
Date of Hearing: 29 July 2025
6
Judgment delivered: 28 August 2025
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
For the Respondent:
S Manganye instructed by Mathie Jooma
Sabdia Incorporated
H Molotsi SC and P Moshoadiba instructed
by Langa Attorneys
7