IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: -Y-ESfNO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥ES-fNO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 26 March 2026
SIGNATURE:
1
Case No. 2023-054065
In the matter between:
THE LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL OF SOUTH
AFRICA
And
APPLICANT
REZA SHA YA T RESPONDENT
Coram: Van der Schyff et Millar JJ
Heard on: 16 March 2026
Delivered: 26 March 2026 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded
2
to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The
date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00 on 26 March
2026.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J (VAN DER SCHYFF J CONCURRING)
[1] Admission as a legal practitioner marks the end of a journey on a road paved with
expectation, hard work and study. The map to this road is the Legal Practice Act1
(the LPA) and those who walk it are given this map, when they are registered as
candidate legal practitioners. The end of this road is marked by the fulfillment of
all the requirements set out in the LPA for admission and then formal admission
before a full bench of the High Court.
[2] The road is not an easy one. Its travel is marked by hard work and dedication,
and it is only those who have committed themselves to completing this journey
and to meeting the exacting standards imposed upon them by the LPA, that reach
its end successfully. Having done so, a new journey as a qualified and admitted
legal practitioner commences.
[3] This is an application brought by the Legal Practice Council {LPC), the statutory
regulator for the legal profession established in terms of the LPA. The LPA came
into operation on 1 November 2018, and it was on that day that the LPC was
born. On that day, the LPC took over all the rights and responsibilities of the
1 28 of 2014
3
erstwhile law societies which had regulated the attorneys profession and was
also, for the first time, a regulator of the advocates profession.2
[4] Registration of all candidate legal practitioners whether their ultimate goal for
admission is as an attorney or as an advocate, must be served on the LPC. It is
the object of the LPC in terms of s 5 of the Act to inter alia:
"(d) regulate all legal practitioners and all legal candidate legal practitioners;
(e) preserve and uphold the independence of the legal profession;
(f) enhance and maintain the integrity and status of the profession;
(g) determine, enhance and maintain appropriate standards of professional
practice and ethical conduct of all legal practitioners and all candidate legal
practitioners ."
[5] The right to practice as a legal practitioner is entirely dependent upon admission
and enrolment in terms of the LPA and the satisfaction of the requirements in
terms of both the LPA as well as the rules and regulations promulgated in terms
of it. Pertinently, in terms of s 24(2)(d), before a candidate can be admitted as a
legal practitioner, it is necessary that the candidate "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. ,e
[6] In this application, the LPC seeks an order rescinding and setting aside the order
made on 21 January 2025, in terms whereof a full bench of this Court admitted
the respondent (Mr. Bhayat) as a legal practitioner and authorised his enrolment
by the LPC upon the roll of attorneys. This application is unopposed, and the
2 In terms of s 3(c) of the Act, one of the purposes is to "create a single unified statutory body to regulate
the affairs of all legal practitioners and all candidate legal practitioners in pursuit of a goal of an
accountable, efficient and independent legal profession."
3 S 24{1)(d) .
4
order sought rescinding the order of the full bench will for the reasons set out
below, be granted.
[7] When the application was called on 21 January 2025, from the papers that had
been filed, it appeared that there had been compliance with the requirements of
the LPA, that the LPC had been duly notified timeously of the intention to bring
the application and that the LPC had in fact offered no objection to the admission
and enrolment. The order was granted, and Mr. Bhayat then appeared before
the presiding judges and took the prescribed oath.
[8] Between 21 January 2025 and 25 August 2025, as far as this Court was
concerned, the order sought by Mr. Bhayat had been properly sought and granted
and he was to the world an admitted attorney.
[9] On 26 August 2025, Mr. Bhayat wrote to the professional affairs department of
the LPC. He wrote two letters that day:
[9.1] The first, sent at 15h01, enclosed a copy of the court order of 21 January
2025 and concluded with
"Please advise when I have been placed on the roll."
[9.2] The second, sent at 16h30:
" ... unfortunately my laptop had a hard drive crash this year and I lost all
my previous emails ... "
and
5
"Please Jet me know what other information you require to place me on
the Roll? I urgently need it as I am required to register as a judicare
practitioner with Legal Aid as a requirement of our firm being on the panel
for the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.
I cannot do this without being on the roll and in possession of a fidelity
fund certificate."
[1 O] The letters were both sent by email, and both recorded in the footer that Mr.
Bhayat was an associate at Bhayat Attorneys Inc.
[11] The letters of 26 August 2025 precipitated a checking of the records held by the
LPC ostensibly so that they could assist Mr. Bhayat with his request. Upon
checking of the records and having regard to the internal processes and
procedures of the LPC, it was ascertained that no record could be found that:
[11 .1]
[11.2]
[11 .3]
The original application had ever been served upon the LPC.
The prescribed examinations had been successfully passed.
The letter of no objection forming part of the record had ever been
issued by the LPC.
[12] In every instance, where a candidate legal practitioner has complied with the LPA
and the rules and regulations promulgated in terms thereof and has been
successfully admitted, the LPC has records in respect of each of the three
requirements set out in paragraph [11] above.
(13] This judgment deals only with these three elements because in the absence of
compliance with either of the first two, the Court would not and could not have
granted the order that it did. It bears mention that there are additional allegations
6
which are serious in nature which have been made in the application by the LPC.
I do not intend to deal with every allegation, suffice it to say that if Mr. Bhayat is
to ever make application for admission as a legal practitioner, he will be required
to deal with all of these allegations "chapter and verse" in order to satisfy both the
LPC and the Court hearing that application that he is indeed a fit and proper
person to be admitted as a legal practitioner.
(14] In respect of the third element, something needs to be said because it is
something that is relied on by the Court with regards to not only technical
compliance with the LPA but also with regards to whether there are any other
facts which need to be placed before the Court which might influence its finding
that a candidate is fit and proper for admission. I intend to deal with each in turn.
SERVICE OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON THE LPC
(15] The LPC records in writing in a register, whenever applications for admissions on
served on it. Service is in terms of s 24(2)( d) read together with rule 17. 74 of the
LPC rules which requires two copies be served. In terms of the LPC process, a
stamp is placed on the documents served (also on the additional copy that the
candidate would keep for their own records).
(16] In addition, when the application is served, the candidate is required to pay the
prescribed fee in terms of s 30(1 )(b)(i)5 read together with rule 2. In terms of rule
2, the prescribed fee when applying for admission as a legal practitioner was on
4 "The original and two copies of the application must lie for inspection with the Council for a period of not
less than one month. The application must be properly prepared and bound with an index, all pages of
the application must be paginated at the top right hand corner of every page, and all attachments must
be clearly marked when the application is served on the Council."
5 "The application referred to in paragraph (a) must-
5 "The application referred to in paragraph (a) must-
(i) Be accompanied by the fee determined in the rules."
7
1 November 2018 R460.00. This amount however was increased with effect from
1 January 2023 to R530.00.6
[17] On the second page of Mr. Bhayat's notice of application, the following two
narrations appear:
"Received a copy of this application together with copies of all supporting affidavits
and all annexures thereto and payment of the fee prescribed under Section
30(1)(b)(i) of the Legal Practice Act, No 28 of 2014 (as amended) and Rule 2 made
under the authority of Section 95(1), 95(3) and 109(2) of the Legal Practice Act, No
28 of 2014 (as amended), on this the 16th day of October 2024.
Accordingly , I certify that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act,
No 28 of 2014 (as amended) have been complied with and that due notice has
been received of the application in accordance with Section 24(2)(d) and Rule 17. 7
made under the authority of Section 95(1), 95(3) and 109(2) of the Legal Practice
Act, No 28 of 2014 (as amended)."
[18] Under both of these narrations, is a place for the secretary of the LPC to
acknowledge receipt of the application and to make the certification referred to
above.
[19) In the present instance, a stamp appears purporting to be the stamp of the LPC
and reflecting service of the application, together with certification on 16 October
2024. Although the stamp that appears has provision for "signature " by the person
at the LPC receiving and certifying compliance, this was left blank.
6 General Notice in Government Gazette GG4 7754 of 15 December 2022 with effect from 1 January
2023.
8
[20] After thorough investigation of its records, the LPC concluded that the application
had never been served on it and that the stamp reflecting receipt had not been
affixed to the document by any of its officers.
[21] Additionally, in his affidavit, Mr. Bhayat asserted that:
"I paid the prescribed fees in terms of Section 2 of the Act to the Secretary of the
Legal Practice Council and submit that proof thereof will be filed with the Registrar
of this Honourable Court prior to the hearing of the application . In support hereof,
I annex hereto proof of payment marked "RB9"."
[22] Annexed to the application as "RB9" was a document that purported to be a
notification of payment made on 19 November 2024 from the business account
of his employer into the account of the LPC in Gauteng in the sum of R460.00.
Since the prescribed fee at the time that the application was made was R530.00,
it is inexplicable (save for what was ultimately discovered) that the LPC would
have raised no query or concern regarding the underpayment of the prescribed
fee.
PASSING OF PRESCRIBED LPC EXAMINATIONS
[23] Annexed to the application, was a certificate purportedly signed by Mr. Johan van
Staden, the Director of the LPC in Gauteng and Ms Charity Nzuza, the Chief
Executive Officer of the LPC. The certificate reflects that Mr. Bhayat wrote and
passed the four compulsory examinations which are required for admission and
enrolment as an attorney. The attached certificate was dated 18 October 2024.
9
[24] An investigation by the LPC ascertained that Mr. Bhayat had neither sat for nor
passed any of the examinations concerned.
[25] The process undertaken by the LPC is that when candidates register to write the
competency-based examinations, upon registration and payment of the
prescribed fee, a consolidated list of all those who have registered and paid is
prepared for the relevant venue. It is explained by the LPC that this list forms the
register for the venue and specific examinations.
[26] The LPC explains what happens with regards to verification of attendance and
receipt of completed answer booklets at the end of the examination as follows:
"Upon completion of the competency-based examination, the candidates must
submit their answer booklets and sign next to their name the amount of answer
booklets used and submitted for that particular examination ."
[27] The LPC was able to furnish the records relating to all four examinations which
confirm are confirmatory of the process described by them. They indicate that
often candidates register and pay for examinations but sometimes do not write
for various reasons, often choosing to write on a subsequent occasion and when
this occurs, a tick is placed next to the name of that candidate on the register. In
other words, a tick is placed next to the name of a candidate who has neither
received an answer booklet nor handed in an answer booklet and signed their
name on the register.
[28] In respect of the four examinations which Mr. Bhayat asserted he wrote and
passed, while his name does appear on the register (meaning that he did enrol!
10
and pay), there is in each instance, a tick next to his name - meaning that he did
not write any of the examinations.
[29] Upon investigation of this aspect, besides ascertaining that Mr. Bhayat neither
wrote nor passed any of the examinations, the certificate containing the two
signatures of Mr. van Staden and Ms Charity Nzuza, is a fabrication. The
fabrication is patent and would have been immediately apparent to any employee
of the LPC in Gauteng because Mr. van Staden, the former director of the LPC
had left the employ of the LPC during 2023 and he could not have signed any
document on 18 October 2024 for the LPC. Similarly, Ms Nzuza, never affixed
her signature to the certificate.
THE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION.
[30] Placed before the Court was a letter dated 18 November 2024 indicating that the
LPC had no objection to the admission of Mr. Bhayat as a legal practitioner and
his enrolment on the roll of attorneys. This letter, the LPC asserts is a fabrication
for the following reasons:
[30.1] The reference on the letter reflected that it had been issued by Mr.
Briel, the current director and Ms Jordaan, from the professional affairs
department in circumstances where Ms Jordaan had ceased working
with the processing of admission applications from 1 October 2024.
[30.2] The letter bears the signature of Mr. Briel in circumstances where he
had ceased signing such letters from January 2024.
11
[31] It is the case for the LPC that it would not in any event have issued a letter of no
objection to Mr. Bhayat as he did not comply with the fundamental statutory
requirements for admission. His failure to either:
[31.1] Serve the application on the LPC.
[31.2] Pay the correct prescribed fee.
[31.3] Write and pass the four prescribed examinations.
[32] Would in and of themselves preclude the issue of a letter of no objection and
following on from this, an acquiescence to the application serving before the
Court without these aspects having been brought to the attention of the Court.
[33] When the LPC ascertained what is set out above, it addressed a letter to Mr.
Bhayat on 3 October 2025 bringing its findings to his attention. In a letter from
him in reply dated 8 October 2025, he maintained the veracity of the service of
his application on 16 October 2024 as well as the authenticity of both the
examination results as well as the letter of no objection. In his letter he pertinently
disavowed that his principal, Mr. AY Bhayat had any personal knowledge of the
matter and further that as of 5 September 2025, he had accepted employment
elsewhere and no longer intended to practice as an attorney. He also went on to
assert that he "suffers from diagnosed extreme depression and anxiety' and that "the
ongoing issues and struggle for admission as an attorney has affected his mental
capacity".
[34] He concluded his letter by "withdrawing his request for enrolment as an attorney'.
The LPC thereafter brought the present application. While Mr. Bhayat initially
opposed the application and filed a notice in terms of rule 30, raising
12
unmeritorious complaints , he subsequently by agreement with the LPC filed a
notice to abide the decision of this Court. This was done in circumstances where
he has failed to file any answer to the very serious allegations of forgery and fraud
made against him. These allegations are corroborated both on oath and with
documents and make out a prima facie case that Mr. Bhayat has made himself
guilty of this conduct with regards to the LPC. An unanswered prima facie case
is a proven case.
[35] Since the LPC was never notified of the application and Mr. Bhayat has not
complied with the statutory requirements for admission, an order is sought
rescinding under rule 42(1 )(a)7 of the uniform rules of Court, the order granted on
21 January 2025.
[36] The basis for the rescission in terms of the rule is that the order was "erroneously
granted in the absence of a party affected thereby".8 However, more fundamental
than reliance upon the rule, which in any event sustains the order, which is sought
and which will be granted, is the proposition that "fraud unravels all". 9 Put
differently, "Fraud and justice never dwell together."10.
[37] In Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors11 , the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom, expressed the position as follows:
''The cause of action to set aside a judgment in earlier proceedings for fraud is
independent of the cause of action asserted in the earlier proceedings . It relates
to the conduct of the earlier proceedings, and not to the underlying dispute."
7 De Wet v Western Bank Ltd 1977 (4) SA 770 (T) at 780H-781A.
8 Backoven Ltd v GJ Howes (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 466 (E) at 471 E-F; Promedia Drukkers & Uitgwevers
(Edms) Bpk v Kaimowitz 1996 (4) SA 411 (C) at 4178-1.
9 Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 ALL ER341 at 345, [1956] 1 QB702 at 712 per Denning LJ, a
dictum well accepted in our law. See Namasthethu Electrical (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another
[2020] ZASCA 74 (29 June 2020) at para [29].
[2020] ZASCA 74 (29 June 2020) at para [29].
10 United India Insurance Co Ltd v Rajendra Singh & Ors AIR 2000 SC 1165 quoted with approval in
Meghmala & Ors v G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors 2010 AIR SCW 5281 at para 23.
11 [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019) at para 61.
13
[38) In ABSA Bank Ltd v Moore and Another, 12 the Constitutional Court held:
"The maxim is not a flame-thrower, withering all within reach. Fraud unravels all
directly within its compass, but only between victim and perpetrator at the instance
of the victim. Whether fraud unravels a contract depends on its victim, not the
fraudster or third parties."
[39) When the application was originally brought, the LPC sought in its notice of
motion an order that the papers in this matter be referred to the National Director
of Public Prosecutions (NPA) for investigation and consideration of criminal
prosecution against Mr. Bhayat arising out of both the forgery of documents and
the fraud committed on the LPC. After the service of the process between the
parties and in consequence of an agreement reached between them in terms of
which Mr. Bhayat would abide the decision of the Court, the order sought in this
regard were abandoned.
[40) While the matter was being argued, this issue was raised with counsel for the
LPC, and clarification sought on whether Mr. Bhayat (who did not appear)
understood that the Court was not bound only to the terms of the draft order that
had been agreed between the LPC and himself. The Court was informed that
Mr. Bhayat had indicated that he was "on standby" and could be readily contacted.
[41) The hearing was adjourned for an hour so that this aspect could be clarified with
Mr. Bhayat, and it subsequently was. While Mr. Bhayat did not appear, he
addressed a letter to the Court, which was uploaded onto Caselines when the
Court resumed (that same day on 16 March 2026) in which he said inter a/ia that:
12 2017 (1) SA 255 (CC) at para [39).
14
"I only agreed to abide by the order of the Court on an understanding that the
opposed order would be granted".
[42] Besides this assertion, Mr. Bhayat also addressed several other aspects relating
to an order of referral of this matter to the NPA in his letter of 16 March 2026. In
particular, he requested that if the Court were to make an order for referral, the
proceedings be delayed for a further two weeks. Satisfied that he understood the
concerns of the Court and in the absence of any answer having been filed, a
postponement was declined. This Court cannot be held to ransom by someone
who, having been given the opportunity to answer on oath, elects not to do so
and then seeks time to "trim his sails to his best advantage."
[43] It is a matter of some concern that Mr. Bhayat does not appear to properly
appreciate the predicament in which he finds himself. His misunderstanding of
the proceedings is underscored by his statement in his letter of 16 March 2026
that "I must stress that this is a rescission application and that no factual determination
is required". He is wrong in this regard.
[44] For this Court to grant the order sought, a finding must be made that the order
was obtained "fraudulently" or "erroneously granted." The LPC has made out its
case overwhelmingly and Mr. Bhayat has been advertant in choosing not to
address the very serious and damning allegations made against him in respect
of his conduct in his application for admission.
[45] Mr. Bhayat does not appreciate the gravity of his conduct. In summary, it is this:
[45.1] He forged several documents (examination results, correspondence
from the LPC and affidavits by third parties) and presented them as
authentic to both the LPC and the Registrar of this Court.
15
[45.2] He misrepresented to both his counsel, who appeared for him as well
as to the Judges before whom he appeared that he had complied with
the provisions of the LPA and was entitled to admission as a legal
practitioner.
[45.3] He went through the charade of being admitted and of taking the oath
of office in circumstances where he knew that he was neither entitled
to do so nor should he have done so because he did not meet the legal
requirements.
[46] Neither the interests of the LPC nor the Court or the public at large would be
served by any delay in the hearing or decision of this matter. It is not only within
the remit of the LPC but also this Court, to refer the matter for investigation. The
unanswered case of fraud and forgery cannot be left simply at that. However, the
order sought by the LPC in its original affidavit is prescriptive of what is to be done
by the NPA in their investigation of the matter.
[47] This is inapposite in the present matter. Besides the fact that the NPA is not a
party to these proceedings, this Court ought not to unnecessarily interfere with
the discretion of the NPA in both the investigation and prosecution of matters. It
suffices that the LPC be ordered to furnish a complete copy of the Court file
together with this judgment to the NPA for them to consider whether any
prosecution is merited and if so, to take such steps as the law may permit.
[48] Regarding costs, since Mr. Bhayat agreed to abide the order in its terms, the
punitive order for costs will follow since that is what is sought.
[49] There is one final aspect which bears mention in this matter. In his application
for admission, Mr. Bhayat attached a statement of results for the LLB degree he
16
was enrolled at with the University of South Africa (UNISA). The statement of
results records that:
"The degree will be conferred at a graduation ceremony to be held during
March/April/May 2020".
[50] The statement of results was dated 13 March 2021. Quite clearly, the statement
of results was furnished after the date of the date upon which the graduation
ceremony was to have taken place. The relevant period in 2020 was at the height
of the Covid-19 Lockdown and ordinary life and day to day events were severely
disrupted for all during that time.
[51] During its investigation of Mr. Bhayat's application, a question arose on the part
of the LPC as to whether the statement of results could be accepted and whether
the LLB degree had in fact been conferred upon him.
[52] The LPC made a request to UNISA for verification of the academic transcript.
The request was made by its attorneys who specified clearly that the request was
made on behalf of the LPC in its capacity as the professional regulator and was
made in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.13 Attached to the
request was a copy of the transcript that Mr. Bhayat had attached to his
application.
[53] Inexplicably, although the transcript that had been furnished by Mr. Bhayat was
furnished to UNISA, they refused to verify the veracity of the document instead
stating that:
13 2 of 2000.
"Access to this information cannot be granted without consent, unless the
requestor can prove they are authorised or have a legitimate legal basis."
17
[54] Even though the LPC made a formal request in terms of PAIA, set out the basis
for the request and even furnished a resolution authorizing the request, UNISA
failed to respond positively.
[55] It is simply not acceptable for an institution such as UNISA to obstruct the
verification of documents purportedly issued by it on such a nonsensical basis.
In doing so, it has impeded the LPC in the discharge of its statutory function and
caused a matter which could easily have been put to rest, had UNISA responded
properly, to now be left unanswered.
[56] Whether or not the transcript provided by Mr. Bhayat is accurate or not and
whether the degree was ever conferred on him, are matters that remain
unconfirmed and in respect of which he, if he decides in the future to apply for
admission as a legal practitioner, will now have to address. The LPC is directed
to deliver a copy of this judgment to the Chancellor of the University of South
Africa for his attention so that he is aware of the failure that has occurred here.
[57] In the circumstances, I propose the following order:
[57.1] The Court order granted by the Honourable Judges Mosopa and
Phahlane on 21 January 2025 admitting Mr. Reza Bhayat as a legal
practitioner and authorizing his enrolment on the roll of attorneys, is
hereby rescinded.
[57.2] The Notice to Abide signed on 29 January 2026 read together with the
letter of 16 March 2026 by Mr. Reza Bhayat establishes his agreement
to abide by the decision of this Court to rescind the order dated 21
January 2025.
18
[57.3) Nothing in this order shall be construed as precluding Mr. Reza Bhayat
from applying for admission as a legal practitioner in the future,
provided that any such application complies fully with the Legal
Practice Act, its regulations and rules, and provided further that he
satisfactorily addresses each and every issue raised in both the
recission application and in this judgment to the satisfaction of both the
Legal Practice Council and the Court.
[57.4) That the Mr. Reza Bhayat immediately surrenders and delivers to the
registrar of this Court his certificate of admission as a legal practitioner
and enrolment on the roll of attorneys of this Court dated 21 January
2025.
[57.5] That in the event of non-compl_iance with the terms of paragraph [57.4)
of this order, within two (2) weeks from the date of this order, the sheriff
of the district in which the certificate is, be authorised and directed to
take possession of the certificate and to hand it to the Registrar of this
Court.
[57.6] Mr. Reza Bhayat is ordered to pay the costs of the application on the
scale as attorney and client.
[57.7] The Legal Practice Council is directed to deliver a copy of this
judgment to the Chancellor of the University of South Africa (UNISA).
19
[57.8] The Legal Practice Council is directed to deliver a complete copy of
the Court file in this matter together with a copy of this judgment to the
National Prosecuting Authority for their consideration.
I AGREE AND IT IS SO ORDERED
HEARD ON:
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
COUNSE L FOR THE APPLICANT :
INSTRUCTED BY:
REFERENCE:
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT :
INSTRUCTED BY:
REFERENCE:
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
E VAN DER SCHYFF
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
16 MARCH 2026
26 MARCH 2026
ADV. C JOOSTE
IQBAL MAH OM ED ATTORNEYS
MS. M NAIDOO
NO APPEARANCE
BERNHARD VAN DER HOVEN
ATTORNEYS
MR. VAN DER HOVEN