About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 1055
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Osman v Legal Practice Council Gauteng Provincial Office (LPC) (Reasons) (2025-207682) [2026] ZAGPPHC 1055 (9 September 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
CASE
NO.: 2025-207682
(1)
REPORTABLE:
Yes
/ No
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
Yes
/ No
(3)
REVISED.
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 9/9/26
In
the matter between:
MOHAMED
IDHRIS OSMAN
Applicant
and
LEGAL
PRACTICE COUNCIL GAUTENG PROVINCIAL OFFICE (LPC)
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS
WESLEY
AJ
[1]
The applicant, Mr Osman, has brought an
application for a final order against the respondent, the Legal
Practice Council (“the
LPC”), directing it to extend the
period of his practical vocational training contract. I refer to this
application as “the
main application”. The LPC opposes
the main application and delivered an answering affidavit in January
2026. Mr Osman delivered
a replying affidavit in February 2026. Mr
Osman was initially legally represented, but has been without
representation since his
attorneys of record withdrew on 9 February
2026.
[2]
On 8 July 2026, Mr Osman applied for a
hearing date for the main application. He delivered a notice of final
set down on 10 July
2026, setting the matter down for 7 September
2026. On 14 July 2026, the LPC then launched a substantive
interlocutory application
for leave to introduce a supplementary
answering affidavit. It attached a copy of the supplementary
answering affidavit it sought
leave to introduce to the founding
affidavit in the application.
[3]
Mr Osman has opposed the interlocutory
application and delivered an answering affidavit in the application.
However, he has elected
not to prepare a supplementary replying
affidavit that could be introduced should the LPC’s application
to admit its supplementary
answering affidavit be granted. He
indicated in oral submissions before me that if the LPC’s
interlocutory application is
granted he would seek to postpone the
main application in order to deliver a supplementary replying
affidavit.
[4]
As I pointed out to Mr Osman, his stance
means that he agrees that the main matter cannot proceed until the
interlocutory application
is resolved. The only way in which the main
application and the interlocutory application could be argued
together is if the supplementary
replying affidavit was before the
Court, so that if the Court granted the interlocutory application it
could then immediately have
regard to both supplementary affidavits
in determining the main application.
[5]
The main application cannot therefore
proceed today. But the interlocutory application cannot proceed
either. It is not ripe for
hearing. Mr Osman has not delivered any
heads of argument in respect of the interlocutory application. No
joint practice note has
been prepared. In addition, although I was
informed that the LPC had delivered a replying affidavit in the
application, that affidavit
does not appear on caselines. In any
event, Mr Osman has not set down the interlocutory application. He
has set down the main application.
He set the main application down
before the LPC’s interlocutory application was launched.
[6]
In the circumstances, neither matter can
proceed today. The parties agreed that I should postpone the main
application, which is
set down for today,
sine
die
.
[7]
As for the question of costs, Mr Osman has
submitted that the LPC should pay his wasted costs (as an
unrepresented litigant, he
would, of course, only be entitled to
necessary disbursements), because it waited until after he had set
the main application down
before it launched its interlocutory
application. He also points out that the LPC only delivered its heads
of argument in the main
application on 4 September 2026, and
complains that this is part of a broad pattern of conduct by the LPC,
although he has not
explained how this would be relevant to the issue
of costs of today.
[8]
The LPC in turn submits that Mr Osman
should pay its wasted costs, because it informed Mr Osman as long ago
as 13 August 2026 that
the main application could not proceed today,
because the interlocutory application must be determined first. Mr
Funani, who appeared
on behalf of the LPC, indicated to me from the
Bar that this was set out in a letter sent by the LPC on that date,
which he tendered
to hand to me. However, he neither had a copy of
the letter for Mr Osman, nor copies of the response that Mr Osman
indicated that
he had sent to the letter. In the circumstances, I
declined to receive the letter.
[9]
In my view, the issue of the wasted costs
of today would best be determined by a court before whom all the
relevant facts have been
properly and timeously presented.
[10]
Finally, I reiterate the view I expressed
to the parties that the most expeditious way for the parties to
proceed is for Mr Osman
to prepare a supplementary replying affidavit
that can be admitted if the LPC’s supplementary answering
affidavit is admitted.
That would permit the main application to be
argued with the interlocutory application, and result in a
considerable saving of
time, which Mr Osman indicated is a pressing
concern for him. This would also result in judicial economy, since
one of the main
issues in the interlocutory application will be the
relevance of the allegations in the supplementary answering affidavit
to the
issues in dispute in the main application. This is because the
allegations in that supplementary affidavit all relate to facts that
took place after the answering affidavit was delivered, and could
therefore self-evidently not have been included in the answering
affidavit.
[11]
In the circumstances, I make the following
order:
1.
The main application is postponed
sine die
;
2.
The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement are reserved for
later determination.
MA
WESLEY AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
APPEARANCE:
For
the Applicant
: In person
For
the Respondent : Mr S
Funani (attorney)
Instructed
by
: Ningiza Horner
Attorneys
Heard
on
: 08 September 2026
Delivered
on
: 09 September
2026