South African Legal Practice Council v Sebueng

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Pretorius J
• Judgment Date: 15 September 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3525 (GP)
• Hearing Date: 29 August 2023
• Docket Number: 18628/2022
• Court: Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Pretorius J:

1.

INTRODUCTION:

1.1

This is an application for the suspension of the respondent from practice as a legal practitioner, alternatively for striking off the respondent from the roll of practitioners. The applicable legal principles will not be dealt with in detail as the legal principles are trite in applications of this nature. This application is not opposed by the respondent, although the respondent entered a notice to oppose the application. No answering affidavit was filed by the respondent and there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

1.2

There is no lis between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant, acting as curatos morum of the attorneys’ profession, places facts before the Court to enable the Court to decide whether an errant attorney should be suspended to practise as an attorney or whether his name must be removed from the roll of attorneys.

1.3

It is trite that a three stage enquiry by the Court must take place to decide whether the offending conduct of the respondent has been established on a balance of probabiltities. The Court has to decide whether the respondent is a fit and proper person to practise as an attorney and has to apply the provisions of the Legal Practice Council Act, (“LPA”), the repealed Attorneys’ Act No 53 of 1979 (“Attorneys Act”), the South African Legal Practice Council Rules (formerly the Law Society’s Rules and the Rules for the attorneys’ profession), the Code of Conduct and the common law.

1.4

The first stage is to decide whether the offending conduct has been established on a balance of probabilities. The second is to determine whether the conduct of

2023 JDR 3525 p3

Pretorius J

the respondent is of such a nature that he is no longer a fit and proper person to practise as an attorney if his conduct is compared to that of what is expected from an attorney. The third stage is to determine whether the respondent should be removed from the roll of practitioners, or whether an order for suspension for a period of time will suffice if all the circumstances are taken into consideration.

2.

THE RESPONDENT:

The respondent was admitted and enrolled as an attorney in this Court on 13 December 2013. He practices as a legal practitioner for his own account as a director/partner at Sebueng Attoneys, 62 Taaifontein Street, Montana.The repondent is still on the roll of legal practitioners of this Court.

3.

SERVICE OF THE APPLICATION:

The...