1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between
THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
and
LAMBERT HENDRIK ROUX
Not reportable
Case no: 2025-222445
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Neutral citation : The South African Legal Practice Council v Lambert Hendrik Roux
(2025-222445) [2026] ZAFSHC 92 (10 March 2026)
Coram:
Delivered:
Summary:
MHLAMBI ADJP and PARKS AJ
10 March 2026
Amendment of erroneous paragraphs.
2
ORDER
1 The order delivered in terms of the judgment of 24 February 2026 remains
unchanged.
2 Paragraph 2 of the judgment delivered on 24 February 2026 substituted with the
following:
'On 11 December 2025, the respondent was suspended from legal practice on precautionary
grounds until 12 February 2026. The applicant was ordered to decide on the matter and to
communicate the decision to the respondent and the Court on or before 6 February 2026. The
application was postponed to 12 February 2026, and the applicant and the respondent were
granted leave to supplement their papers, if necessary, on or before that date. On 12 February
2026, the matter was postponed by agreement, and the rule nisi was extended to 19 February
2026.'
3 Paragraph 11 of the judgment delivered on 24 February 2026 substituted with the
following:
'An indefinite suspension pending a disciplinary hearing, which he was advised would only take
place in March 2026, will irreversibly destroy his 40-year practice and cause severe prejudice to
dozens of innocent clients who have placed their trust in him over decades.'
JUDGMENT
Mhlambi ADJP (Parks AJ concurring)
[1] It has come to our attention that the dates mentioned in para 2 of the judgment do
not match and make the reading of the judgment difficult. This is due to a typographical
error regarding the date when the respondent was suspended from legal practice and the
date to which the rule nisi was extended. Paragraph 11 is corrected to provide a clearer
and more contextual meaning. It is evident that these were obvious clerical errors as
outlined by rule 42(1 )(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Therefore, paras 2 should read
as follows:
'[2] On 11 December 2025, the respondent was suspended from legal practice on
precautionary grounds until 12 February 2026. The applicant was ordered to decide on the matter
and to communicate the decision to the respondent and the Court on or before 6 February 2026.
3
The application was postponed to 12 February 2026, and the applicant and the respondent were
granted leave to supplement their papers, if necessary, on or before that date. On 12 February
2026, the matter was postponed by agreement, and the rule nisi was extended to 19 February
2026.'
Paragraph 11 will read as follows :
'[11] An indefinite suspension pending a disciplinary hearing, which he was advised would only
take place in March 2026, will irreversibly destroy his 40-year practice and cause severe prejudice
to dozens of innocent clients who have placed their trust in him over decades.'
[2] In the result , the following order is made:
1 The order delivered in terms of the judgment of 24 February 2026 remains
unchanged .
2 Paragraph 2 of the judgmen t delivered on 24 February 2026 subst ituted with the
following :
'On 11 December 2025, the respondent was suspended from legal practice on precautionary
grounds until 12 February 2026. The applicant was ordered to decide on the matter and to
communicate the decision to the respondent and the Court on or before 6 February 2026. The
application was postponed to 12 February 2026, and the applicant and the respondent were
granted leave to supplement their papers, if necessary, on or before that date. On 12 February
2026, the matter was postponed by agreement, and the rule nisi was extended to 19 February
2026.'
3 Paragraph 11 of the judgment delivered on 24 February 2026 substituted with the
following :
'An indefinite suspension pending a disciplinary hearing, which he was advised would only take
place in .March 2026, will irreversibly destroy his 40-year practice and cause severe prejudice to
dozens of innocent clients who have placed their trust in him over decades.'
I concur , and it is so ordered.
J J MHLAMBl
JU GE OF THE HIGH COURT
4
The Honourable Justice
2026 -03-' f O
N.S. Daniso .._ _ _______ _ C PARKS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
5
Appearances
For the applicant: I Sander
Instructed by: Blair Attorneys , Bloemfontein
For the respondent: PC Ploos van Amstel .
Instructed by: Pieter Skein Attorneys , _Bloemfontein .