SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 095647-2026
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
DATE 31 August 2026
SIGNATURE
In the Ex Parte Application of:
ORE-OLUWA OLADAYO Applicant
(IDENTITY NUMBER: 6[...])
For his admission as a legal practitioner and the provision of authorisation to the
Legal Practice Council to enrol the Applicant as an Attorney in terms of Section 24
read with Section 30 of the Legal Practice Act, No. 28 of 2014 (as amended)
JUDGMENT
MAZIBUKO J et RAUBENHEIMER AJ
Introduction
[1] The Applicant brought an application to be admitted to practice as an attorney
of this Court.
2
[2] The application was launched in April 2026. In the founding affidavit the
Applicant deals with all the customary requirements. He was born in Nigeria in 1967
and the name contained on his birth certificate is indicated as Kolawole Oladayo. He
states that his name was changed to Ore -oluwa Keith Oladayo on application to the
High Court of the Ogun State in Nigeria. As proof of this change , the Applicant
attaches an affidavit indicating that an application was made to the mentioned court.
[3] He has been granted citizenship in the Republic of South Africa in terms of a
Certificate of Naturalisation number R 292381 dated 23 October 2007 and a South
African Identity Document was issued to him on 24 March 2017.
[4] The Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree was conferred on him by the University of
South Africa on 20 November 2019.
[5] On 7 November 2019 , he concluded a twenty-four-month Practical Vocational
Training Contract (PVTC) with Dingaan Andries Lance Mmekwa at Mmekwa
Incorporated Attorneys, which was registered with the Legal Practice Council (LPC)
on 11 November 2019. On the same date he was granted a Certificate of Right of
Appearance.
[6] His principal, Dingaan Andries Mmekwa, passed away on 6 July 2021 , and the
Applicant did not complete a twenty-four-month period under a Practical Vocational
Training Contract.
[7] The Applicant attended a structured coursework program presented by the Law
Society of South Africa (LSSA) School for Legal Practice from 8 June 2020 to 8
December 2020.
[8] He disclosed in his founding affidavit that while serving under the P VTC, he
was a director of two private companies , namely, Keeke Trades (Pty) Ltd with
registration number 2012/012066/07, and Keekee Security and Projects (Pty) Ltd
with registration number 2021/1826215/07 . The former is indicated on the CIPC
Certificate as being in the process of deregistration , while the latter is indicated as
Certificate as being in the process of deregistration , while the latter is indicated as
being in business. He is also a member of two Close Corporations namely , Dayonel
3
Greatbol Consulting and Properties with registration number 2008/218648/23 which
is indicated on the C IPC Certificate as being in business , and Keekee Trades (Pty)
Ltd with registration number 2001/069739/23 . The Applicant however, does not
attach any CIPC Certificate in respect of this entity.
[9] The LPC requested the Applicant to provide a supplementary affidavit clarifying
his involvement in the thirteen entities attached to the LPC's request as an annexure.
He deposed to a supplementary affidavit and addressed four private companies and
one Close Corporation. The Paradise Hospitality Management (Pty) Ltd , registration
number 2014/120559/07 , was deregistered on 30 March 2023 due to non -
compliance with the filing of Annual returns since 2016. The next company , Mount
Sinai Cherubim and Seraphim Gospel Outreach , registration number
2015/280078/07, was deregistered on 20 January 2024 due to non -filing of Annual
Returns since 2017.
[10] The Applicant stated that he remained a nominal member of the Dayonel
Greatbol Consulting Close Corporation together with his wife. He alleges that he is
not actively involved in the day-to-day running of the business. He has not attached
a confirmatory affidavit from his wife.
[11] The Applicant states that he is a director of South African Diamond Express
with registration number 2020/569435/07 and that he became a director on 24
January 2012 on incorporation. He has not attach ed CIPC Certificates in respect of
this entity and does not explain the inconsistency between his alleged becoming a
director in 2012 and the entity’s incorporation in 2020.
[12] In the founding affidavit and the first supplementary affidavit, he consequently
dealt with a total of nine entities in which he held either membership or directorship.
[13] The Applicant deals with his non-compliance with Rule 22 by stating that he did
not think it necessary to obtain prior written consent from the LPC to continue to hold
not think it necessary to obtain prior written consent from the LPC to continue to hold
the mentioned positions. He further avers that he did not have any pecuniary
interests in any of the mentioned entities and also did not receive any remuneration
from any of the mentioned entities. He does not explain the discrepancy with the
4
purpose for which the entities were created namely as family businesses with the
aim of generating long-term stability and generat ing a legacy for his children. The
Applicant states that his principal was aware of his involvement in the mentioned
enterprises.
[14] In its request to be provided with this supplementary affidavit the LPC required
the Applicant to address specific issues such as:
(a) The reason for his failure to obtain prior written consent from the LPC in
accordance with Rule 22.1.5.1;
(b) His duties and functions in the mentioned entities, the extent of those duties
and functions, when the duties and functions were performed, and complete
details of any income derived therefrom;
(c) Provide a record that occupying the positions in the mentioned entities did
not, during the period of service in terms of the PVTC, interfere with his daily
duties as a candidate attorney;
(d) Explain the effect of the holding of such positions in the mentioned entities
on the provisions of clause 1.4 of the PVT C, which states as follows:
“subject to any applicable rule or regulation, not to engage in any business
whatsoever other than that of a candidate attorney unless the written
consent of the principal and the Legal Practice Council has been granted.”
(e) Clearly disclose whether it was disclosed to his principal that he held the
positions in the mentioned entities during the period of service in terms of
the PVTC;
(f) The Applicant was informed that it is irrelevant whether the entity was
active, dormant, or undergoing a deregistration process , or whether or not
he derived any income from any of the entities , or whether the duties were
performed outside normal working hours. In this regard, the Applicant was
referred to the judgment of Ex Parte Galela and Another.1
[15] Not satisfied with this disclosure , the LPC requested that the Applicant depose
to a second supplementary affidavit dealing with the entities on the list that was
to a second supplementary affidavit dealing with the entities on the list that was
1 [2023] ZAGPPHC 716 (18 August 2023).
5
provided in the request for the first supplementary affidavit that he had failed to deal
with.
[16] In his second supplementary affidavit, the Applicant dealt with three Non -Profit
companies. The first is One Love Progressive Union (NPC) , registration number
2012/158620/08, where he has been registered as a director since its incorporation
on 31 August 2012. The entity was in the process of deregistration at the time of the
application for admission. The second is BSD Schools (NPC) , registration number
2015/069426/08, where he has been registered as a director since its incorporation
on 3 March 2015. The deregistration commenced in July 2018 and was finalised on
20 January 2024. The third is Ikenne Development Association (NPC) , registration
number 2011/119660/08 , where he has been registered as a director since its
incorporation on 26 September 2011. This entity remains in business, and the
Applicant remains registered as a director.
[17] In all three affidavits , the Applicant dealt with eleven entities, leaving two
entities that he did not deal with despite being requested to deal with all the entities
on the list. The two entities that he did not deal with are The Federation of Ogun
State Patriot and One Love Progressive Organisation Pretoria, both of which are
indicated as being in business on the list provided by the LPC. The Applicant does
not provide any explanation why he did not deal with these entities.
Discussion
[18] Section 24 (2) of the Legal Practice Act2 provides that the High Court must
admit a person who, upon application , satisfies the Court that the statutory
requirements have been met. The requirements stipulated in section 26 of the Legal
Practice Act include that an applicant must be a South Africa n citizen or a South
African permanent resident, a fit and proper person, and has served the application
on the LPC containing the information prescribed by the Rules. The Court is not
on the LPC containing the information prescribed by the Rules. The Court is not
simply required to determine whether an applicant has obtained an LLB degree,
completed the Practical Vocational Training and complied with the formal procedural
2 Act 28 of 2014.
6
requirements. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant is fit and proper to be
admitted.
[19] In Ex Parte Galela the Court stated as follows:
“The admission of legal practitioners is governed by the Legal Practice Act 28 of
2014 (the LPA). Section 24(6) (footnote omitted) provides that the high court must
admit to practice: a person who is duly qualified; is a South African citizen or
permanent resident; who has served an application containing information as
determined by the rules; and who is a fit and proper person to be so admitted.
Section 26 (footnote omitted) of the LPA sets out the minimum qualifications and the
vocational training required. These include having satisfied the requirements for an
LLB degree obtained at any registered university in South Africa, after pursuing it for
the required number of years.”3
[20] Rule 22.1.5 of the Rules in terms of the Legal Practice Act regulates the
position in respect of candidate legal practitioners’ involvement in other business
entities whilst serving under a PVTC.
[21] The Rule provides as follows:
“A candidate attorney shall not have any pecuniary interests in the practice and
service of an attorney, other than in respect of bona fide remuneration for his or
her services as a candidate attorney, and shall not, without prior written consent
of the Council, hold or occupy any office in respect of which he or she receives
any form of remuneration, directly or indirectly, or engage in any other business
other than that of candidate attorney, where holding that office or engaging in
that business is likely to interfere with the proper training of the candidate
attorney.”
[22] The Rule contains an absolute prohibition to the effect that a candidate attorney
shall not have pecuniary interest in the practice and service of an attorney, other
than the remuneration for services as a candidate attorney. The Rule contains a
second prohibition which is conditional , namely that the candidate attorney may not
second prohibition which is conditional , namely that the candidate attorney may not
3 Ex Parte Galela above n 1 at para 2.
7
occupy any office for remuneration or engage in any other business without the prior
written consent of the Council.
[23] The question about who has the power to grant consent for a candidate
attorney to hold or occupy any office or engage directly or indirectly in any other
business other than that of candidate attorney has been authoritatively dealt with in
Ex Parte Galela and Another 4 and Rensburg v South African Legal Practice Council
and related matters.5
[24] In Ex Parte Galela, the Court concluded that it is only the Council that has the
authority to grant written consent to a candidate attorney to be involved in another
business whilst serving under a PVT C. The Court further held that it is peremptory
for such written consent is to be obtained prior to the registration of the PVT C. The
Court identified the purpose of the rule as “to guard against candidate attorneys
becoming involved in other business whilst undergoing the proper envisaged training
as candidate attorney.”
[25] In Rensburg,6 the Court established that Rule 22.1.5 creates two scenarios. In
the first scenario, established in Rule 22.1.5.1, there is an absolute prohibition
against a candidate attorney having a pecuniary interest in the practice and service
of an attorney, apart from bona fide remuneration as a candidate attorney. The
second scenario , also established in Rule 22.1 .5.1, regulates the holding of other
offices or engagement in other businesses, where prior written consent of the LPC is
required in the circumstances specified by the Rule.
[26] Rule 22.1.5.2 states that the effect of a contravention of the provisions of Rule
22.1.5.1 is that the “ contract concerned shall be void ab initio and service rendered
thereunder shall be ineffective unless the court on good cause shown otherwise
directs”. In Rensburg, the Court stated as follows:
“I have indicated above that it remains the LPC's prerogative to decide whether an
“I have indicated above that it remains the LPC's prerogative to decide whether an
individual applicant has to obtain prior written consent in terms of the applicable Rule
4 [2023] ZAGPPHC 716 (18 August 2023).
5 [2020] JOL 56977 (GP).
6 Rensburg above n 6 at para 13-14.
8
in regard of the second scenario set out in par [13] above. The purpose of the
relevant Rule is to ensure that a candidate attorney does not occupy any other office
other than that of candidate attorney or engaging in any other business that is likely
to interfere with his/her proper training as candidate attorney. The new insertion is to
make it possible for an applicant to approach the Court on good cause shown that
the non -compliance with Rule 22.1.5.1; and that it does not interfere with the
envisaged training and that the PVTC ("contract") be declared valid and the service
rendered be effective. Failure to obtain the necessary prior written consent of the
Council renders the contract ab initio void and the service ineffective.”7
[27] Furthermore, in Rensburg, the Court held that the applicant’s averment that the
involvement in a company did not interfere with proper training as a candidate
attorney is of no instance.
[28] The essence is that neither the candidate nor the principal may assess whether
the candidate attorney's involvement in other businesses may or may not interfere
with the proper required and prescribed training as a candidate attorney. This
assessment is reserved for the L PC, who, on a full and frank disclosure of all the
relevant facts and circumstances , exercises its discretion contained in Rule 22.1.5.1
before granting the permission. In Rensburg, the Court stated as follows:
“I am of the view that the wording in Rule 22.1.5.1 is clear and that a candidate
attorney must obtain prior written consent to hold such office and/or to receive
remuneration as set out in the Rule. It is not for the candidate attorney to decide
whether the holding of such office is likely to interfere with his/her training. If that was
allowed, there will be no norm to be applied what is meant with "likely to interfere with
the training of the candidate attorney " and it will defeat the purpose of the Rule. The
the training of the candidate attorney " and it will defeat the purpose of the Rule. The
purpose of the Rule is clearly to guard against candidate attorneys becoming
involved in other business whilst under -going the proper envisaged training as a
candidate attorney.”8
[29] Should the LPC not be approached with an application for permission , the
Court retains authority to direct that the contract will be void ab initio and the service
rendered under the contract is ineffective.
7 Rensburg above n 6 at para 24.
8 Rensburg above n 6 at para 25.
9
[30] The Applicant states in par 6.2.2 of his founding affidavit that he “did not hold or
occupy any office or engage in any other business other than that of candidate
attorney, as required by Rule 22.1.5.1 and Rule 17.2.9 of the Rules.” However, in
paragraph 11 of the founding affidavit he deals with his pecuniary interest and
mentions the three entities referred to above.
[31] In considering Applicant’s application for condonation regarding not seeking the
permission of the LPC, the Applicant advances that he did not think it necessary to
do so, that his non -compliance amounts to a mere technical contravention of the
Rules and that his non-compliance was “inadvertent, non -prejudicial, and devoid of
any improper motive” ; and that he at all times “acted in good faith and in full
appreciation of the ethical and professional responsibilities imposed upon me.”
[32] He refers to unnamed instances where the Court, on previous similar
occasions, adopted a “pragmatic and equitable ” approach to the effect that mere
technical non-compliance does not warrant a refusal to condone non-compliance.
[33] The application for condonation must be assessed against the background that
the Applicant was requested on two occasions to depose to a supplementary
affidavit. These affidavits were requested by the LPC because the Applicant did not
make a full and frank disclosure of his business activities in his founding affidavit.
[34] In the LPC’s first request for a supplementary affidavit, the Applicant was asked
to respond to specific queries raised by the LPC. One of the essential queries was
whether he had complied with the requirement of obtaining written consent from his
principal as required by clause 1.4 of the contract. The Applicant merely responded
that he had informed his principal. He provided no proof of his principal ’s written
consent.
[35] In Ex Parte Cassim ,9 it was established that the legal profession demands
consent.
[35] In Ex Parte Cassim ,9 it was established that the legal profession demands
utmost good faith from all applicants seeking admission as an advocate or an
9 1970 (4) SA 476 (T).
10
attorney. In addressing the issue of full and frank disclosure/non -disclosure, the
Court in Makgolo v South African Legal Practice Council10 held that:
“His reluctance to disclose those facts, combined with the serious omissions of facts
as recorded earlier, severely and seriously impact on a character who claims to be a
fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner and to be enrolled as an
attorney of this Honourable Court. His integrity has been seriously compromised.”
[36] In Mukwevho v Legal Practice Council ,11 the Court, in addressing the issue of
non-disclosure, held as follows:
“Even if the court accepts the supplementary affidavits, the facts therein support the
contention of the LPC that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to enter the
profession. The offending conduct of making a dishonest statement is established on a
preponderance of probabilities. Good faith is a sine qua non for an application brought
ex parte. When any material facts are not disclosed, be it wilfully or negligently omitted
a court may on that ground alone dismiss an ex parte application… Honesty is
considered an important prerequisite for a legal practitioner to be fit and proper… The
attorneys profession is an honourable one and demands “ complete honesty, reliability
and integrity from its members.”…”
[37] In Vatsha v Johannesburg Society of Advocates ,12 in addressing the issue of
non-disclosure, stated that “ [t]his failure advertises the applicant’s inability to
appreciate the sacrosanctity of full and frank disclosure, a critical dimension of an
ethical lawyer’s character.”
[38] The LPC required full and comprehensive disclosure of his duties and functions
in the mentioned entities. This request was not complied with , and the Applicant
merely responded that he was not involved.
[39] Of great concern is the fact that two of the entities mentioned in the list
provided by the LPC w ere not dealt with at all in any of the affidavits filed by the
provided by the LPC w ere not dealt with at all in any of the affidavits filed by the
Applicant.
10 [2024] ZAGPPHC 831 para 20.
11 [2022] ZAGPPHC 962 at paras 12-14.
12 [2023] ZAGPJHC 453 at para 20.
11
[40] It is incomprehensible that an Applicant for application as a legal practitioner
can aver that non-compliance with a peremptory requirement coupled with a specific
sanction for non -compliance could amount to a mere technical non -compliance.
Even more unacceptable is that a condonation application refers to unnamed
previous situations where a court made a specific ruling in favour of technical non -
compliance despite specific and authoritative authority to the contrary.
[41] The Applicant ’s claim , both in his founding affidavit and his supplementary
affidavits, that the businesses were dormant or minimally active during his tenure as
a candidate legal practitioner, and that he was not involved in the day to day running
of the businesses listed above do not, by themself, dispose of the issue.13 According
to the Applicant, his role in the businesses listed in his founding affidavit was purely
“nominal and honorary”. The Applicant also deposed in his founding affidavit and
supplementary affidavits that he is a director of several companies. In Ex Parte
Gasa,14 the Court, when dealing with the issue of directorship of the applicant, stated
as follows:
“Notwithstanding the assistance available to directors in terms of s 76(5) of the
Companies Act, it is clear that only some duties may properly be left to an employee or
official, as the case may be, and neither the Companies Act nor the common law
allows for a director to effectively abandon his or her duties and entrusting those duties
to a manager, as the applicant did. It remains that a director may not accept
information and advice blindly. On the contrary, a director must give it due
consideration and exercise his or her own judgment in the light thereof. A director may
not shelter behind culpable ignorance or an alleged failure to understand the
company’s affairs.” (footnote omitted)
[42] The Court in Ex Parte Gasa further explains that in terms of section 76 (5) of
[42] The Court in Ex Parte Gasa further explains that in terms of section 76 (5) of
the Companies Act,15 a director who abandons their duties as a director is in breach
of their fiduciary duties “as director to act with the necessary care, skill and diligence
13 Ex Parte Gasa (10845/23P) [2026] ZAKZPHC 33 (25 March 2026).
14 Ex Parte Gasa above n 14 at para 55.
15 Act 71 of 2008.
12
and in good faith, in the best interests of the company for a proper purpose” .16 The
fiduciary and statutory duties of a director arise from the assumption of the office of
director and are not extinguished merely because the director characterises his or
her role as nominal, honorary or inactive. 17 The common law continues to operate
alongside these statutory duties. A director may, in appropriate circumstances, rely
upon employees, advisers or other persons in terms of s ection 76(5), of the
Companies Act but may not thereby abandon the responsibilities attaching to the
office or shelter behind culpable ignorance. The Court further states that an
Applicant for admission who breaches their fiduciary duties as a director during their
period of Practical Vocational Training is not a fit and proper person to be admitted
as a legal practitioner.18
[43] This Court finds that the Applicant has failed to show good cause as required in
Rule 22.1.5.2.
The View of the LPC
[44] Despite the patent and glaring shortcomings in the Founding and
Supplementary Affidavits , the LPC indicated that it had no objection to the
Applicant's application for admission to practice as an attorney. The applicant's
conduct contains clear elements of impropriety. The LPC's position raises concerns.
These concerns have been raised on previous occasions in the Galela matter, as
well as in the matter of Thulani Ambrose Vatsha v The Johannesburg Society of
Advocates.19 The failure of the LPC to heed the warnings in the mentioned decisions
is unacceptable and is contrary to the rol e and function of the LPC as the custodian
of the Legal Profession established in section 4 of the Legal Practice Act.
Conclusion
[45] Based on the above reasons, the following order is made:
1. The application for condonation for non -compliance with the requirements
of Rule 22.1.5.2 is hereby dismissed;
16 Ex Parte Gasa above n 14 at para 56.
17 Section 76(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
16 Ex Parte Gasa above n 14 at para 56.
17 Section 76(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
18 Ex Parte Gasa above n 14 at para 57.
19 (0978/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 453 (10 May 2023).
13
2. The application to be admitted to practice as a legal practitioner and to be
enrolled as an attorney by the Legal Practice Council is hereby dismissed.
3. The Registrar is to serve a copy of this judgment on the Legal Practice
Council.
___________________________
E RAUBENHEIMER
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
___________________________
NGM MAZIBUKO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
14
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge s whose names
are reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their
legal representatives by e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter
on Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 31 August 2026.
Appearances:
Applicant: Adv Z Sotyato
Instructed by: OM Ogunsanwo Attorneys info@omattorneys.co.za
Date of hearing: 3 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 31 August 202
15