IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
Case No: 2025-008458
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant
and
SINDISO KONDLO Respondent
Reportable / Not reportable
Coram: Henney, J et Anderssen AJ
Heard: 22 May 2026
Delivered: Electronically on 26 May 2026
Summary: Striking off – roll of legal practitioners – attorney
ORDER
1. Sindiso Kondlo’s name shall be removed from the roll of legal practitioners
of this Court.
2. The applicant is directed:
2.1 to inform the r espondent forthwith, via email and WhatsApp, that
he must immediately surrender and deliver to the Registrar of this
Honourable Court his certificate/s of enrolment as a legal
practitioner of this Honourable Court; and
2.2 to ensure that this Order shall be served on the respondent by the
Sheriff within 5 (five) days of it being granted.
3. Should the r espondent fail to comply with paragraph 2.1 of this order, the
Sheriff shall, on the date of service, take possession of the certificate and
hand it to the Registrar of this Court.
4. The r espondent is prohibited from handling or operating on his trust
account/s, as detailed below hereof.
5. The Director / Acting Director / Nominee of the applicant of the Provincial
Legal Council is appointed as the Curator Bonis to administer and control:
5.1 the trust accounts of the respondent, and
5.2 any accounts relating to insolvent and deceased estates and any
estate under curatorship connected with the respondent’s practice
as attorney, and
5.3 the separate banking accounts opened and kept by the
respondent at a bank in the Republic of South Africa in terms of
section 78(1), section 78(2) and/or section 78(2A) of the Attorneys
Act of 1979 (" the Attorneys Act ") of the Republic of South Africa,
alternatively in terms of sections 86(2); (3) ; and (4) of the Legal
Practice Act, 28 of 2014 (" the LPA ") (collectively “ the relevant
statutory sections”),
in which monies from such trust banking accounts have been invested by
virtue of the provisions of the said sub -sections or in which monies in any
manner have been deposited or credited (the said accounts being
hereafter referred to as “the trust accounts’’), with the following powers and
duties:
5.4 immediately to take possession of the respondent’s accounting
records, records, files and documents in relation to his practice as
legal practitioner and to sign all forms and generally to operate
upon the trust account(s), but only to such extent and for such
purpose as may be necessary to bring to completion current
transactions in which the respondent was acting at the date of this
order;
5.5 where monies have been paid incorrectly and unlawfully from the
undermentioned trust accounts, to recover and receive and, if
necessary in the interests of persons having lawful claims upon
the trust account(s) and/or against the respondent in respect of
monies held, received and/or invested by the respondent in terms
of the relevant statutory sections , to take any legal proceedings
which may be necessary for the recovery of money which may be
due to such persons in respect of incomplete transactions, if an y,
in which the respondent was and may still have been concerned
and to receive such monies and to pay the same to the credit of
the trust account(s);
5.6 to ascertain from the respondent's accounting records the names
of all persons on whose account the respondent appears to hold
or to have received trust monies (hereinafter referred to as “trust
creditors”) and to call upon the respondent to furnish him/her,
within 30 (thirty) days of the date of service of this order or such
further period as he/she may agree to in writing, with the names
and addresses of and the amounts due to all trust creditors;
5.7 to call upon such trust creditors to furnish such proof, information
and/or affidavits as he/she may require enabling him/her to
determine whether any such trust creditor has a claim in respect
of monies in the trust account(s) of the respondent and, if so, the
amount of such claim;
5.8 except where a trust deficit is determined, to admit or reject, in
whole or in part, subject to the approval of the Legal Practitioners
Fidelity Fund Board (" LPFF Board"), the claims of any such trust
creditor, without prejudice to such trust creditor’s right of access
to the civil courts;
5.9 having determined the amounts which, he/she considers are
lawfully due to trust creditors, to pay such claims in full, but
subject to the approval of the LPFF Board;
5.10 in the event of there being a surplus in the trust account(s) after
payment of the admitted claims of all trust creditors in full,
5.10.1 to utilize such surplus to settle or reduce, as the case
may be, firstly, any claim of the Fund in terms of section
78(3) of the Attorneys Act and/or sections 86(2) and (3)
of the LPA, in respect of any interest therein referred to;
and/or
5.10.2 without prejudice to the rights of the creditors of the
respondent, the costs, fees and expenses referred to in
paragraph 11 of this Order, or such portion thereof as
has not already been separately paid by the respondent
to the applicant, and, if there is any balance left after
payment in full of all such claims, costs, fees and
expenses, to pay such balance, subject to the approval
of the Board of Control of the LPFF, to the respondent if
it is solvent or if the respondent is insolvent, to the
liquidator(s) of the respondent;
5.11 in the event of there being a trust deficit in the trust banking
account(s) of the respondent, in accordance with the available
documentation and information, to pay the available balance in
the trust banking account(s) of the respondent, to the LPFF;
5.12 to appoint nominees or representatives and/or consult with and/or
engage the services of attorneys, counsel, accountants and/or
any other persons, where considered necessary, to assist him/her
in carrying out his/her duties as Curator; and
5.13 to render from time to time, as Curator, returns to the applicant
showing how the trust account(s) of the respondent has/have
been dealt with.
6. The respondent shall immediately after service of the order by the Sheriff
deliver the said accounting records , other records, files, and documents
containing particulars and information relating to:
6.1 any monies received, held or paid by the respondent for or on
account of any person while practising as an attorney;
6.2 any monies invested by the respondent in terms of the relevant
statutory sections;
6.3 any interest on monies so invested which was paid over or
credited to the respondent;
6.4 any estate of a deceased person or an insolvent estate or an
estate under Curatorship administered by the respondent,
whether as executor or trustee or Curator or on behalf of the
executor, trustee or Curator;
6.5 any insolvent estate administered by the respondent as trustee or
on behalf of the trustees in terms of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of
1936;
6.6 any trust administered by the respondent as trustee or on behalf
of the trustees in terms of the Trust Property Control Act, No 57 of
1988;
6.7 any company liquidated in terms of the Companies Act, No 71 of
2008, administered by the respondent as or on behalf of the
liquidator;
6.8 any close corporation liquidated in terms of the Close
Corporations Act, No 69 of 1984, administered by the respondent
as or on behalf of the liquidator; and
6.9 the respondent’s practice as attorney of this Honourable Court, to
the Curator appointed in terms of this order, provided that, as far
as such accounting records, records, files and documents are
concerned, the respondent shall be entitled to have reasonable
access to them but always subject to the supervision of such
Curator or his/her nominee.
7. Should the respondent fail to comply with the provisions of the preceding
paragraph of this order, the Sheriff for the district in which such accounting
records, records, files and documents are, be empowered and directed to
search for and to take possession thereof wherever they may be and to
deliver them to such Curator.
8. The respondent be and is hereby removed from office as –
8.1 executor of any estate of which the respondent has been
appointed in terms of Section 54(1)(a)(v) of the Administration of
Estates Act, No 66 of 1965 or the estate of any other person
referred to in Section 72(1) thereof;
8.2 curator or guardian of any minor or other person’s property in
terms of Section 72(1) read with Section 54(1)(a)(v) and Section
85 of the Administration of Estates Act, No 66 of 1965;
8.3 trustee of any insolvent estate in terms of Section 59 of the
Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936;
8.4 liquidator of any company in terms of Section 379(2) read with
379(e) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008;
8.5 trustee of any trust in terms of Section 20(1) of the Trust Property
Control Act, No 57 of 1988;
8.6 liquidator of any close corporation appointed in terms of Section
74 of the Close Corporations Act, No 69 of 1984;
8.7 administrator appointed in terms of Section 74 of the Magistrates’
Court Act, No 32 of 1944.
9. The Curator shall be entitled to:
9.1 hand over to the persons entitled thereto all such records, files
and documents provided that a satisfactory written undertaking
has been received from such persons to pay any amount, either
determined on taxation or by agreement, in respect of fees and
disbursements due to the firm;
9.2 require Claimants to provide any documentation or information
which the Curator may consider relevant in respect of a claim or
possible or anticipated claim, against the Curator and/or the
respondent and/or the respondent’s clients and/or fund in respect
of money and/or other property entrusted to the respondent,
provided that any person entitled thereto shall be granted
reasonable access thereto and shall be permitted to make copies
thereof;
9.3 publish this order or an abridged version thereof in any
newspaper he/she considers appropriate;
9.4 close the respondent’s practice/s insofar it relates to the client
files, records and trust accounts.
10. The respondent shall within 6 (six) months after having been requested to
do so by the Curator, or within such longer period as the Curator may
agree to in writing, satisfy the Curator, by means of the submission of
taxed bills of costs or otherwise, of the amount of the fees and
disbursements due to him ( the r espondent) in respect of his former
practice, and should he fail to do so, he shall not be entitled to recover
such fees and disbursements from the Curator without prejudice, however,
to such rights ( if any) as he may have against the trust creditor(s)
concerned for payment or recovery thereof;
11. A bill of costs drawn on the High Court scale of attorney and client costs
taxed by the Registrar of this Court (who is authorised to do so) mutatis
mutandis as if the Curator and the responsible officials of the Applicant in
discharging their duties as contemplated in this order had acted as
attorneys, shall constitute proof of their reasonable fees and
disbursements (‘’the Curatorship fees and disbursements’’) and that the
Registrar be authorised to issue a writ of execution for payment thereof by
the respondent;
12. That the Curatorship will terminate when the Curator receives a final
written discharge from such duties from the applicant consequent upon the
Curator filing with the applicant a final report and account, together with
supporting vouchers, in respect of the execution of the Curator’s duties in
terms of this Order.
13. In the event of the respondent failing to comply with any of the provisions
referred to in this Order, the applicant shall be entitled to apply through
due and proper civil process commensurate with the principles of the
Constitution for the appropriate relief against the respondent including but
not limited to an Order for the committal of the respondent to prison for the
respondent’s contempt of the provisions of the abovementioned
paragraphs.
14. The Respondent be, and is hereby directed, to:
14.1 pay, in terms of Section 87(2) / 37(2)(a) of the LPA, the
reasonable costs of the inspection/investigation of the accounting
records of the respondent;
14.2 pay the fees and expenses of the curator, such fees to be
assessed at the rate of R1 760.00 per hour, including travelling
time;
14.3 pay the reasonable fees and expenses charged by any person(s)
consulted and/or engaged by the curator as aforesaid;
14.4 pay the expenses relating to the publication of this order or an
abbreviated version thereof; and
14.5 pay the costs of this application on an attorney-and-client scale;
15. Any person other than the respondent whose rights are affected by the
terms of this order shall be entitled, on notice to the applicant and the
respondent, to make application to this Honourable Court for a variation of
the terms of this order on good cause shown.
16. The respondent shall pay the costs of this application on a scale as
between attorney and client.
JUDGMENT
Anderssen AJ (Henney J concurring):
Introduction
[1] The applicant (“ the LPC ”) seeks the removal of the respondent’s name
from the roll of legal practitioners and ancillary relief. It does so in terms of
sections 44(1) and 119(3) of the Legal Practice Act 1 (“the LPA ”), which
transferred to the LPC the powers previously afforded to the law societ ies.
An attorney may be struck from the roll or suspended from practice if the
attorney, in the court’s discretion, is found not to be a fit and proper person
to practise as an attorney or to remain on the roll of attorneys.2
[2] The respondent (“Mr K”) received notice of the application on 18 February
2025. Although he filed a notice of his intention to oppose, he failed to file
an answering affidavit even after being directed to do so by the court
through a chamber book order. He also did not appear at the hearing
despite being notified of the date of set down. Mr K is the proprietor of S
Kondlo Attorneys Inc and ke eps an office in Cape Town. He was enrolled
as an attorney in June 2010 in the Eastern Cape High Court before
enrolling as an attorney in this division in June 2015. The LPC, after
1 28 of 2014.
2 See s 40(3)(a)(iv) of the LPA.
investigation, has concluded that Mr K has misappropriated funds held in
trust on behalf of his clients and has mal -administered trust funds under
his control. It is based on this evidence of unprofessional and/or unworthy
and/or dishonourable conduct that the LPC launched the application.
The facts on which the LPC relies
[3] The LPC investigated complaints from four of Mr K’s clients, and it is their
findings pursuant to several disciplinary enquiries that have led to this
application. The facts in respect of each complaint are summarised briefly
below.
Complaint 1
[4] The first complaint arose from the sale of an immovable property. Mr K
was instructed to handle the transfer of the property, which was sold for
R220 000. The purchaser had paid the complainant R30 000 directly and a
further R190 000 was paid to Mr K’s trust account during November 2019.
The complaint was made because Mr K paid the seller only R35 000 of the
R190 000, as a result of which she was left homeless. She had planned on
using the money to construct a new home for herself.
[5] Mr K avoided answering the complaint for some seven months , and, when
he finally answered the complaint , his submissions were inconsistent with
the objective facts – by way of example he averred that the R190 000 was
paid directly to the complainant when the bank statements for his trust
account confirmed that he had received the R190 000. He was called upon
to answer allegations of misconduct, being in contravention of clause 21 of
the LPC’s Code of Conduct and misappropriating R155 000 of the
proceeds. He failed to attend the disciplinary enquiry.
Complaint 2
[6] Mr K was instructed to attend to the transfer of an immovable property into
the second complainant’s name and, after her divorce was finalised, to pay
to her former husband his half share of the property proceeds . The
complainant paid Mr K R180 000 but he only paid R15 000 to her former
husband in 2018. In 2020 he advanced him a further R5 000 to bury his
mother. He also never gave the complainant her title deed.
[7] The LPC called upon Mr K to answer the complaint in March 2021. His
reply, several months later, did not address the complaint. Months of
correspondence followed before he was charged in July 2022. Mr K also
failed to attend this disciplinary enquiry. At the hearing in absentia the
complainant testified that about R80 000 of the R180 000 included an
amount, which, according to Mr K, was allegedly intended for SARS . This
the LPC noted as a concern as pension fund benefits are taxed at source.
Complaint 3
[8] The third complaint followed the second very quickly . This also concerned
the transfer of an immovable property. The complainant paid Mr K some
R312 550 during February 2020 in respect of the purchase of a property,
which included transfer costs of R12 550. Before registration took place Mr
K paid the seller R100 000 and also paid the selling agent his commission.
He did so against the complainant’s objections. When the property
transaction was lodged at the deeds office it was rejected as the seller’s
former wife had already sold the property. They had been married in
community of property and the divorce order compelled them to sell the
property and share the proceeds.
[9] Despite the complainant’s efforts Mr K cancelled meetings and failed to
resolve the issue. Mr K, on receipt of the complaint from the LPC, did not
answer same and was charged a year later. Charges included a failure to
respond to LPC correspondence, practising without a Fidelity Fund
certificate, failing to account accurately and timeously for funds paid by the
complainant and paying her monies to the seller without her consent. In
their investigation the LPC established that the first payment of R300 000
was paid to an account, which was not even Mr K’s trust account (he had
provided the ‘trust account’ details) . Mr K again did not attend the
disciplinary enquiry.
Complaint 4
[10] The fourth complainant paid Mr K an amount of R150 000 during July 2020
in respect of a property where Mr K was tasked with the transfer . He was
to have paid the amount to the seller against transfer but he never did so.
An amount of R70 000 remained due even after she received the title deed
in February 2021. The LPC forwarded the complaint to Mr K. A year later
they issued a charge sheet against him. The charges included misconduct
in terms of Item 21 of he LPC’s Code of Conduct, and breaching Item 3.15
of the same code by bringing the profession into disrepute. Mr K once
again did not attend the disciplinary enquiry.
Shortfall in trust account
[11] The LPC has identified a substantial shortfall in the trust account of S
Kondlo Attorneys Inc . A review of bank account statements revealed
repeated transfers from the trust account to his personal and business
accounts, many of which appear irregular or inadequately explained. The
amounts so transferred are usually ‘round’ numbers, which is of concern.
Rule 54.14.14 of the LPC Rules permit s withdrawals from a trust account
only where funds are due to a trust creditor or legitimately transferable to
the firm’s business account in respect of fees and disbursements already
debited. Rule 54.11 requires strict separation between trust money and
other funds. The transfers demonstrate a failure to comply with these
mandatory requirements. Mr K obtained Fidelity Fund Certificate s in prior
years on the basis of information that was inaccurate and misleading.
The court’s approach in matters of this nature
[12] The Supreme Court of Appeal formulated the approach that a court should
follow in matters of this nature in Jasat v Natal Law Society.3
Ultimately, therefore, what is contemplated is a three -staged inquiry. First, the
court must decide whether the alleged offending conduct has been established on
a preponderance of probabilities. … The second inquiry is whether, as stated in
s 22(1)(d), the person concerned “in the discretion of the Court” is not a fit and
proper person to continue to practise. ... It would seem clear, however, that in the
context of the section, the exercise of the discretion referred to involves in reality
a weighing up of the conduct complained of against the conduct expected of an
attorney and, to this extent, a value judgment. … The third inquiry is whether in all
the circumstances the person in question is to be removed from the roll of
attorneys or whether an order suspending him from practice for a specified period
will suffice. This is similarly a matter for the discretion of the court of first instance
and the power of a court of appeal to interfere is likewise limited. Whether a court
and the power of a court of appeal to interfere is likewise limited. Whether a court
will adopt the one course or the other will depend upon such factors as the nature
of the conduct complained of, the extent to which it reflects upon the person’s
character or shows him to be unworthy to remain in the ranks of an honourable
profession, … the likelihood or otherwise of a repetition of such conduct and the
need to protect the public. Ultimately it is a question of degree.
[13] Proceedings in which the striking -off of an attorney is sought are sui
3 (78/98) [2000] ZASCA 14 (28 March 2000); 2000 (3) SA 44 (SCA); [2000] 2 All SA 310 (A) at
para [10].
generis. They are of a disciplinary nature. A respondent attorney cannot
simply meet the allegations against him/her with mere denials. Such an
attorney is expected to respond meaningfully to each allegation made and
to furnish a proper explanation of the financial discrepancies as a failure to
do so may count against that respondent. 4 It follows from the nature of
disciplinary proceedings that a respondent is expected to cooperate and
provide the necessary clarification in order to place the full facts before the
court so that a correct and fair assessment of the case can take place.5
[14] It is trite that the LPC, when applying for the striking off of a legal
practitioner’s name from the roll does so custos morum in performance of
a public duty . They have been tasked with protecting the interests of the
public in dealing with attorneys. The profession of an attorney requires
absolute honesty, integrity and reliability from practitioners. They owe the
highest standard of trust to the court, the public at large and the society of
which they are members. The objective of an application of this nature is to
maintain the integrity, dignity and respect that the public holds for officers
of the court.
Discussion
[15] We are satisfied that the LPC has established the offending conduct on a
balance of probabilities. Mr K’s actions were investigated at four different
disciplinary enquiries where, after hearing oral evidence from the
complainants and other witnesses, adverse findings were made against
him based not only on the oral evidence but also on documents provided.
4 Hepple v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (507/201) [2014] ZASCA 75 (29 May 2014)
at para [9].
5 See Botha v Law Society (50/08) [2009] ZASCA 13 (19 March 2009) at para [18].
The objective evidence demonstrates clearly that Mr K has
misappropriated trust funds entrusted to him by clients, recklessly dealt
with such funds and failed to comply with his fiduciary duties . His
dishonesty caused his clients to suffer financial loss. An aggravating factor
is the pattern of behaviour – he has been dishonest in at least four
different property transactions. We consider the fact that he received funds
in respect of transfers of immovable properties to be another aggravating
factor in circumstances where Mr K was never admitted as a conveyancer.
We are led to the inescapable conclusion that he misrepresented his
qualifications to members of the public. His conduct demonstrates a
repetitive improper pattern of behaviour.
[16] Mr K contravened the rules of ethical conduct by breaching the provisions
of the LPA, the LPA Rules and the Code of Conduct. He repeatedly failed
to answer correspondence directed at him by the LPC and failed to appear
at the disciplinary enquiries when it was his duty to answer to the
allegations made. He was, and remains, under an obligation to answer to
these questionable transactions in a meaningful manner by furnishing a
proper explanation of the financial irregularities. 6 His mis conduct has
brought the attorney's profession into disrepute . Mr K was afforded ample
opportunity to explain his actions and account for the funds but he failed to
do so. In most instances he did not comply with the reasonable requests
by the LPC. He not only did not avail himself of the opportunity of
explaining his actions in writing but also failed to appear at any of the
disciplinary enquiries. The first leg of the enquiry has thus been satisfied.
6 Hepple supra at para [9].
[17] We must therefore, as part of the second leg of the enquiry determine
whether Mr K is a fit and proper person to continue to practice as an
attorney. We do not believe that he is. The law requires of each attorney
the highest degree of good conduct and, in matters concerning money
belonging to the client or a third party, to act with accuracy and diligence at
the highest standard. An attorney must keep that money safe in a separate
trust account and account for it properly and timeously. Mr K failed to
comply with various LPC Rules on Trust Accounts. By way of example, he
did not report to the Council in writing when an account of a trust creditor
went into debit. He failed to comply with the statutory rules even though a
failure to comply with any of the provisions of the accounting rules
constitutes misconduct.
[18] When we weigh Mr K’s conduct against the conduct expected of an
attorney who is held to the highest standards of ethics, we must conclude
that his conduct falls far short of that which is expected. The legal
profession is an honourable profession demanding high ethical standards
including complete honesty, reliability and integrity from its members.7
[19] That brings us to the third and final leg of the enquiry: we must determine
whether in all the circumstances Mr K is to be removed from the roll of
attorneys or whether an order suspending him from practice for a specified
period will suffice.
[20] The public has a right to be protected from an attorney who has
misappropriated clients’ funds. The pattern of behaviour described above
demonstrates that Mr K is an individual who has repeatedly mismanaged
7 See Vassen v Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope 1998 (4) SA 532 (SCA) at 538G.
trust funds, taken funds and failed to account for the funds to clients. We
would not be surprised to learn that Mr K has mismanaged the funds of
more people than the four complainants. There is a clear risk that if he
continues to practice as an attorney further trust funds will go missing. He
is a risk to the public.
[21] He has failed to explain himself and it is apparent from the timeline in the
papers that h is conduct endured over a period of nearly a year – he
continued to mismanage and misappropriate funds even whilst his conduct
was being investigated in September 2020. The timeline demonstrates that
after September 2020, despite knowing that his conduct was under
scrutiny, Mr K continued to withhold R70 000 of the fourth complainant’s
funds even after handing her the title deed in February 2021. We consider
this a further aggravating factor indicative thereof that merely granting an
order suspending Mr K from practice for a specified period will not suffice.
[22] Dishonesty strikes at the heart of an attorney’s fitness to practice. Blatantly
continuing with dishonest conduct, which included misrepresentations to
various clients and misappropriating their funds , whilst under investigation,
displays an arrogant disregard for the law and his ethical obligations. We
do not believe that a suspension from practice for a specified period will
suffice. We say so with due regard to the nature of the conduct complained
of.
[23] Mr K’s conduct does not reflect well of his character and shows him to be
unworthy to remain in the ranks of an honourable profession. The degree
of his dishonesty, the fact that he took money from vulnerable people with
low incomes who are not well -versed in property transactions, and that he
repeated his conduct , all lead us to the inescapable conclusion that we
need to protect the public from him. He has shown no remorse and has
either sough to hide his conduct with untruths (as demonstrated by his
answer to the first complaint) or has failed to answer the allegations made
or to ‘face the music’ at disciplinary hearings.
[24] An order striking him from the roll of practicing practitioners is warranted.
As is an order that he should bear the costs on an attorney client scale.
We have incorporated in our order provision for the appointment of a
curator.
[25] The order is recorded above.
__________________________
ANDERSSEN J S
Acting Judge of the High Court
I agree and it is so ordered.
____________________________
HENNEY R C A
Judge of the High Court
Appearances:
For the applicant: Mr Sirkar
Instructed by: Herold Gie Attorneys
No appearance for the respondent.