IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFR ICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
( 1) REPORT ABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 08/04/2026 LENYAI J
LINDA PATRICK MASUKU
And
THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL
(Formerly known as the Law Society of the Northern Provinces)
In re:
THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES
(Now known as the South African Legal Practice Council)
And
LINDA PATRICK MASUKU
CASE NO:13712/2008
Applicant
Responden t
Applicant
Respondent
1
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Par
ties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and
time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 08 April 2026.
JUDGMENT
LENYAI J (MOLOPA-SETHOSA J CONCURRING)
[1] This is an application by the applicant to uplift the suspension order granted
against him on 23 October 2009 and in addition to this upliftment application, the ap
plicant is also seeking the removal of a curatorship placed on his law firm.
[2] The issues to be determined by the court include the following:
2.1 Is the applicant fit and proper to be re-enrolled/continue practicing as a
legal practitioner?
2.2 Is it competent for the court to grant an order removing/discharging the
curatorship? And
2.3 The costs of the application.
[3] The respondent raised the following point in limine against the applicant's case
in its answering affidavit:
3.1 Non-joinder of the Curator bonis
3.2 The applicant erred in bringing the upliftment application under case
number 13712/2008 , as this violates Uniform Rule 6. The matter under
this case number has been concluded and order was granted and there
fore, the applicant cannot bring the current matter under the very same
case number. This was not earnestly pursued by the LPC. In any event,
in my considered view, the suspension was granted under Case number
2
31712/2008; and the applicant's practice was placed under curatorship
under the same Case number 13712/2008; therefore, it cannot be said
that the applicant was incorrect in bringing this application under Case
number 13712/2008.
[4] The Legal Practice Council of South Africa (Previously known as the Law So
ciety of Northern Provinces), applied for the suspension of the applicant after it was
found out that the applicant had committed the following contraventions:
4.1 The applicant practiced without a fidelity fund certificate for a number of
years (2004 to 2009).
4.2 The applicant failed to submit his annual auditor's reports for the periods
ending 28 February 2003 and 28 February 2007 to the former Law Society; and
he failed to submit his annual auditor's reports for the periods ending 29 Feb
ruary 2004, 28 February 2005 and 28 February 2006 timeously to the former
Law Society (now referred to as "the Legal Practice Council").
4.3 The applicant failed to pay his subscription fees to the former Law Soci-
ety.
4.4 The applicant failed to keep proper accounting records, to such an extent
that his records could not be used "to manage the accounts and the firm's
trust position".
4.5 The applicant had trust deficits in his bookkeeping.
4.6 Several of the applicant's trust creditors' accounts reflected debit bal-
ances.
4.7 The applicant failed to co-operate with the Law Society in its inspections
of his firm, by failing to respond to correspondence from the Law Society, failing
3
to adhere to undertakings given to the Law Society and failing to hand over
documents requested.
4.8. On several occasions the applicant appeared before disciplinary com
mittees which found him guilty of misconduct and imposed fines upon him. The
applicant failed to pay those fines.
[5] The Legal Practice Council was successful in its application, which resulted in
the suspension of the applicant as a legal practitioner.
Applicant's submissions
[6] The applicant submits that the reason driving this application for the uplifting of
the suspension order is because of the irregularities surrounding the application of his
suspension. He submits that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself. He
states that this is because he was not given notice regarding the list of contraventions
he was accused of.
[7] He also submits that he was not in court when the order was granted although
the copy of the court order he obtained stipulates otherwise. He further submits that
he never had a consultation with Mr Van Rensburg of the LPC and that because of
this, Mr Van Rensburg's unsigned affidavit evidence should be deemed inadmissible,
and amounts to hearsay. According to the applicant's submission , Mr Van Rensburg
also made a mistake stating that the applicant conducts his practice under Masuku
Attorneys instead of LP Masuku Attorneys. Further, Mr Van Rensburg also stated that
the applicant has his practice in Mpumalanga not in Gauteng.
[8] The applicant submits that because he had passed a bookkeeping course of
fered by the Law Society and that he satisfied all the requirements and he was admit
ted as an attorney on 15 October 2002, he is then fit and proper to return to practice.
4
The applicant also submits that no misconduct complaints were made against his prac
tice. He further avers that it is the accident he was involved in on 29 June 2007 that
resulted in him not being able to submit audit reports to the Law Society thus, also
adding to one of the reasons for his suspension.
[9] The applicant submits that his suspension had a negative significant effect on
his personal life. This is so because he is unable to further his children's studies even
though they have done well for themselves in matric. He is also unable to repair both
his motor vehicle and his household. He further submits that because of the loss of
income he incurred due to this defective suspension, he is not intending on suing the
LPC but will however be forced to do so should he encounter unnecessary defense
from the LPC (if his application for upliftment is opposed). The applicant is asking the
court to set aside the suspension so that he can be able to generate fees that would
be able to ensure that he maintains himself and his family, put his children to school
and be able to repair both his vehicle and house.
[1 0] The applicant further submits that he is fit and proper to return to practice and
to show this transformation; he indicates that he had been consulting with a psycholo
gist, Mr Martin Mgcina who declared him fit to practice. He further indicates that he
alongside the Legal Aid Board, drafted the divorce summons for his divorce which was
granted in his favour, he successfu lly defended a mandament van spolie application
against someone who owed him R 100,000.00 that he had invested, and lastly, that
he is a legal advisor and a born again Christian at his church.
Oral Submissions: What the applicant said before court.
[11] The applicant submitted that he was not afforded an opportunity to resolve this
issue through other means that could have been employed by the LPC before taking
him to court. This is in reference to the fact that he submitted that he wasn't given an
him to court. This is in reference to the fact that he submitted that he wasn't given an
opportunity to explain himself before a disciplinary hearing. He further submitted that
the LPC took advantage of him in the sense that they waited for him to be hospitalised
and when he couldn't defend himself due to the accident, they proceeded with the
suspension application which was granted.
5
[12] The applicant also asked for the costs in the original suspension application to
be directed not at him, but rather at his former legal representative. This is because
the applicant submits that he had instructed his former legal representative to oppose
costs when prayed for by the LPC in the original application, but such opposition never
took place, and as a result, the applicant is financially strained as he must pay such
costs.
Respondent's submissions
[13] The LPC submits that the applicant's submission pertaining to the alleged ir
regularities surrounding his suspension application is flawed. This is so, because the
applicant in one of his arguments regarding the alleged irregularity avers that he was
not afforded an opportunity to defend himself. The respondent submits that this sub
mission is untrue, because the applicant was served with the suspension application
on 17 March 2008 and he did oppose the suspension proceedings and subsequently
filed an opposing affidavit. The respondent also submits that the applicant's submis
sion that Mr Van Rensburg's affidavit was not signed is false. This is because the
affidavit in question at Caselines, page 03-54 indicates Mr Van Rensburg's signature,
thus negating the applicant's submission.
[14] The LPC submits that the applicant's submission 'that because of the accident
he encountered on 29 June 2007 is the reason why he was unable to submit the au
ditor's reports to the Law Society timeously' is untenable. This is because these audi
tors' reports were required in 2003 for the months of June and August , which is way
before the period of the applicant's alleged accident , which was during June 2007 on
the applicant's version.
[15] According to the applicant's submission , he insinuates that his suspension re
sulted due to a "misunderstanding " instead of complaints or contraventions from his
end. This submission is in disregard of the contraventions indicated above. Further,
end. This submission is in disregard of the contraventions indicated above. Further,
the LPC also received the following complaint post suspension of the applicant, the
6
former Law Society received a complaint from an MB Moloi against the applicant. In
short, the complaint indicates that the applicant misappropriated an amount of R60
412.13 from a deceased estate.
[16] The LPC submits that the applicant also had various interactions/disciplinary
hearings with the LPC where he was found guilty of various offences and various fines
were imposed because of those offences. The applicant still has not paid any of those
fines even though they were imposed ages ago. The LPC submits that this debunks
the applicant's submission of not being afforded an opportunity to appear before a
disciplinary hearing.
[17] The court, regarding the costs argument as made by the applicant in the post
ponement application, however, indicated to the applicant that this is not the appropri
ate place or court to seek such relief. Instead, the applicant should have sought an
appeal regarding this issue.
[18] The LPC further submits that the applicant keeps shifting blame for most of the
things that transpired in his case. For example, he owes the costs of the original sus
pension application. He blames his former legal representative (Mr Lukhele). The ap
plicant also blames his legal representative regarding the attacks made against the
LPC in his answering affidavit.
[19] The applicant at some point during some of the interactions with the LPC
blamed his former principal for not educating him on how to conduct himself as a legal
practitioner. The applicant also blamed the LPC for failing to apprise him that his con
duct was not that envisaged of a legal practitioner. The LPC submits that this behav
iour indicates lack of accountability, which is a character defect for a legal practitioner
and especially for someone who wishes to be accepted back to practice as a legal
practitioner.
7
[20] Regarding the curatorship relief, the LPC submits that the applicant is mis
guided for asking the court to uplift the curatorship subjected to him. This is because
the applicant was never subjected to any curatorship, only his practice was. And his
practice has since been wound up and thus the court cannot be asked to uplift such
order, because this is no longer possible since the practice in question no longer ex
ists.
[21] The LPC submits that this reflects very poorly on the applicant's honesty and
integrity and reflects an unwillingness to accept responsibility for his conduct. The LPC
avers that such characteristics are defective in nature for any legal practitioner. In
addition, the applicant is not showing any remorse, appreciation or acknowledgement
of the wrongs he committed. This is because in his submissions he never at any point
addressed any of the transgressions levelled against him. The LPC submits that this
shows that the applicant never went under any rehabilitation or transformation for him
to be allowed back into practice. In essence, the applicant does not appreciate and
acknowledge the seriousness of his misconduct.
Legal Framework
[22] The court in Malan and another v The Law Society, Northern Provinces [2009]
1 All SA 133 (SCA), said the following:
'"The implications of an unconditional order removing an attorney from the roll for mis
conduct are serious and far-reaching. Prima facie, the court which makes such an
order visualizes that the offender will never again be permitted to practice his profes
sion because ordinarily such an order is not made unless the court is of the opinion
that the misconduct in question is of so serious a nature that it manifests character
defects and lack of integrity rendering the person unfit to be on the roll. If such a person
should in the years apply for re-admission , he will be required to satisfy the court that
he is 'a completely reformed character' (Ex parte Wilcocks 1920 TPD 243 at 245) and
he is 'a completely reformed character' (Ex parte Wilcocks 1920 TPD 243 at 245) and
that his 'reformation or rehabilitation is, in all the known circumstances , of a permanent
nature' (Ex pa rte Knox 1962 (1) SA 778 (N) at 784 ). The very stringency of the test for
8
re-admission is an index to the degree of gravity of the misconduct which gave rise to
disbarment."'
[23} It is evident from this reasoning that character defects and lack of integrity are
what need transformation or rehabilitation for any person that has been subjected to
either removal or suspension from the roll, should such person wish to be allowed
back in practice. The onus lies with the person in question convince the court that such
a person has permanently transformed.
[24] The test applied in the case of re-admission of legal practitioners has been set
out as follows by the court in Slabbert v Legal Practice Council 2021 JDR 3109 (FB)
at paragraph 9:
"The fundamental question to be answered in an application of this kind is whether
there has been a genuine, complete and permanent reformation on the appellant's
part. This involves an enquiry as to whether the defect of character or attitude which
led to him being judged not fit and proper no longer exists. (Aarons at 5 294H.) Allied
to that is an assessment of the appellant's character reformation and the chances of
his successful conformation in the future to the exact demands of the profession that
he seeks to re-enter. It is thus crucial for a court confronted with an application of this
kind to determine what the particular defect of character or attitude was. More im
portantly, it is for the appellant himself to first properly and correctly identify the defect
of character or attitude involved and thereafter to act in accordance with that appreci
ation. For, until and unless there is such a cognitive appreciation on the part of the
appellant, it is difficult to see how the defect can be cured or corrected. It seems to me
that any true and lasting reformation of necessity depends upon such appreciation."
[25} It is further evident from this reasoning that as part of transformation and/or
rehabilitation of character defects, integrity and attitude of the person in question , that
rehabilitation of character defects, integrity and attitude of the person in question , that
individual bears the onus of indicating before court of every wrong done and the rea
sons behind what led to the commission of those acts . Such individual is required to
be truthful in explaining all this before court, as this apprises the court of whether the
9
person in question is in appreciation of the wrongs done and whether the wrongs are
acknowledged. In essence, such appreciation or acknowledgment of the wrongs com
mitted and showing remorse amongst other things, indicates the state of transfor
mation or rehabilitation on the applicant's end.
[26] Such acknowledgement and appreciat ion of the wrongs done is very crucial but
is, however, not the sole deciding factor. Other factors in addition to this help the court
to come to a decision of whether re-admission is to be granted, in this case, whether
the suspension should be uplifted.
[27] The court in Malan and another v The Law Society, Northern Provinces, further
said the following:
"It is seldom, if ever, that a mere suspension from practice for a given period will trans
form a person who is unfit to practice into one who is fit to practice. Accordingly, as
was noted in A v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 1989 ( 1) SA 849 (A) at 852E
G [also reported at [1989] 4 All SA 361 (A) - Ed], it is implicit in the Act that any order
of suspension must be conditional upon the cause of unfitness being removed. For
example, if an attorney is found to be unfit of continuing to practice because of an
inability to keep proper books, the conditions of suspension must be such as to deal
with the inability. Otherwise, the unfit person will return to practice after the period of
suspension with the same inability or disability."
[28] As previously indicated that various factors play a significant role in deciding
whether a suspended or removed individual is to be re-admitted; from the above rea
soning it can be deduced that rehabilitation or transformation not only refers to char
acter defects, attitude or integrity of the individual in question , but also refers to the
techn ical skills or competencies which may have also added to the individual's sus
pension. In this case , the applicant is required to show before court that he took nec
pension. In this case , the applicant is required to show before court that he took nec
essary steps and means to rectify his incompetencies, i.e. learning how to keep proper
10
accounting records. In essence, the applicant in this case should address every trans
gression levelled against him by the LPC by ensuring that whichever transgression
can still be rectified, that happens before applying for re-admission.
(29] In South African Legal Practice Council v Teffo (2023] JOL 61514 (GP), the
court said the following:
"[2] The personal qualities of an advocate, and indeed any legal practitioner, as an
officer of the court must include those of diligence, honesty and integrity. It is those
qualities one looks to when giving thought to the phrase a "fit and proper person" which
is at the forefront of all admission applications, and it is uppermost on a court's mind
when taking the decision to strike a practitioner from the roll."
(30] It is clear from this reasoning that any individual hoping for admission to the
legal profession as well as those who are subjected to either suspension or removal
from the roll must satisfy the "fit and proper person" test either for admission to be
successful and for suspension or removal from the roll not to take place. The test, as
mentioned supra, requires that such individuals be those who are honest, have integ
rity and are diligent in how they perform their legal duties and conduct themselves as
legal practitioners. Lack of such traits indicate individuals who are unworthy to be in
the legal profession as they pose danger to the public they ought to serve.
[31] The court in the case of, South African Legal Practice Council v Kgaphola and
Another (795/2023) [2025] ZASCA 66 (23 May 2025), said the following regarding
impugning the integrity of the LPC:
"[36] I also consider the respondent's conduct in the proceedings before the high court.
In his answer to the LPC's application , instead of addressing the complaints against
him, the respondent resorted to impugning the integrity of the LPC. For example, he
stated that the LPC: (a) brought the application well knowing that its allegations were
11
baseless; (b) was 'clutching at straws' to build a 'non-existent case'; and (c) twisted
the facts.
[37] As a result, said the respondent, he was perplexed about the motive behind the
application. As stated, all the complaints by the LPC had been established. The re
spondents' allegations were clearly intended to convey that the LPC had sinister mo
tives against him. These are serious insinuations against a professional regulatory
body whose function is, among others, to maintain ethical standards . They should not
be lightly made. In Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Mogami (Mogami),23 this
Court warned against such conduct and pointed out that this, in itself, constitutes un
professional conduct and a strategy that the courts cannot countenance.
[38] It behoves us to repeat that warning here. A time will soon arrive when legal prac
titioners who make themselves guilty of this unprofessional conduct risk being sus
pended from practice or struck off the roll, solely based on this, as this may be indica
tive of, or border on, lack of fitness to practice as a legal practitioner."
Analysi s
[32] For the applicant to be re-enrolled back into the legal profession, he had the
onus to prove and convince the court that he had reformed or transformed perma
nently. In proving before court of his transformation , he had to prove that his defective
character traits had been rectified and show that he is a person with integrity. To do
all this, the applicant had to address all the misconducts levelled against him by the
LPC and explain honestly before court why he committed each one of those trans
gressions, and how he is reformed.
[33] In addition to the explanations , he had to indicate to the court the initiatives he
undertook to rectify all the transgressions that are still possible of being rectified. Ex
ample of this would be paying the fines imposed by the LPC against him in the disci
plinary hearings they had with him. But the applicant did not attempt to do any of these.
plinary hearings they had with him. But the applicant did not attempt to do any of these.
Of course, the applicant submitted a psychological report indicating his fitness and he
undertook and passed a bookkeeping course offered by the Law Society, but that is
unfortunately not enough for re-admission.
12
[34] The applicant's argument before court was motivated by his eagerness to come
back into practice for purposes of being employed and making money. This argument
is flawed in the sense that it says nothing about the reasons why he was suspended.
In his argument to be re-enrolled, he does not take the public which he is supposed to
serve as a legal practitioner into confidence.
[35] Legal practitioners exist to uphold the law and serve the public. This means that
in everything that legal practitioners do, the public must be the beneficiary of such
acts. The applicant's argument does not reflect this, and it indicates that the applicant
is thinking only about himself and the family, which is wrong if that is the sole reason
for his intention of coming back to practice.
[36] Since the applicant never attempted to rectify or address any of the transgres
sions levelled against him, this indicates that he failed to pass the "fit and proper per
son" test, and he failed to acknowledge and appreciate his wrongs. This is an indica
tion of lack of reformation or transformation on the part of the applicant. A person who
is unable to identify their defective character traits cannot reform as the motives, in
tentions and reasons behind committing the wrongful acts in question are unknown
and not explained before court.
[37] It is common cause that 'practicing without a fidelity fund certificate' has been
deemed a serious misconduct. The fact that the applicant says nothing about this
transgression in his argument to be re-enrolled back into practice screams lack of
courtesy and amounts to breach of professional integrity by the applicant.
13
[38] Further, the applicant submitted that the LPC was not genuine in how it dealt
with his suspension because they took advantage of him in the sense that they waited
for him to be hospitalized and when he couldn't defend himself due to the accident,
they proceeded with the suspension application. The alleged accident in question here
was allegedly prior to the transgression of the applicant.
[39] Legal practitioners have been warned about loosely attacking the LPC, see the
SCA of LPC v Kgaphola mentioned above at paragraph 31 above. This is a profes
sional regulatory body whose role is to regulate the conduct of legal practitioners and
ensure that ethical standards of the law profession are maintained. Such utterance
constitutes unprofessional conduct and can be detrimental to the applicant as this mis
conduct alone can result in either suspension or removal from the roll. Since in this
case the applicant has already been suspended, such is an indication of failure to
satisfy the "fit and proper person" test for upliftment of the suspension.
[40] The applicant is also praying for the removal of a curatorship placed against his
practice. This prayer is however impossible to grant considering that the applicant's
practice has since been wound up and the effect of such wounding up means that the
practice has lost its legal status, and its business activities have ceased.
{41] Due to this, the applicant's practice has ceased to exist, and the curatorship
no longer exists since the practice is dissolved. Further, the curator bonis that was
appointed to deal with the applicant's practice is not joined in this case, although such
curator bonis has direct and substantial interest in the matter. This failure to join the
curator bonis is a violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem and as
such, this relief cannot be entertained
14
[42] Under the circumstances the following order is made:
1. The application for the upliftment of the suspension is dismissed .
2. The application for the discharge of the curatorship on the applicant's former
practice is dismissed .
3. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an attorney and client
scale at Scale B.
And
I concur and it is so ordered.
MMD LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
LM MOLOPA-SETHOSA J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
15
Appearances
For the Applicant:
For the Respondent:
Date of hearing:
Date of Judgement:
Linda Patrick Masuku (pro se)
M Steenkamp instructed by
Rooth and Wessels Inc
09 October 2025
08 April 2026
16