The Gauteng Division of the High Court has struck controversial legal practitioner Malesela Daniel Teffo (the respondent) off the roll, after the Legal Practice Council (LPC) (the applicant) brought the application to the High Court in accordance with the disciplinary procedures to adjudicate over his conduct, which was alleged to be unprofessional, dishonourable or unworthy as provided for in s 44(1) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (the LPA).
The LPC, which is a statutory regulatory body regulating the legal profession, took the decision to launch an application for the striking off alternatively, suspension after a number of complaints, which it received against the respondent, as well as other irregularities concerning his practice. The court said that the purpose of the application, the LPC contended that actions of the respondent constitute deviation from the standards of professional conduct and that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to continue to practice as an advocate.
The LPC pointed out that some of the alleged offences the respondent committed, are as follows –
The court said that the applicant submitted that the court will find that the applicant has made out a sufficient case to have the respondent struck off with immediate effect. The court added that the respondent, in his papers contended that on 19 May 2021 he received the applicant’s notice of the motion and the applicant called on him to answer to the allegations of being unfit and improper to practice as a legal practitioner, indicating that he must admit that he had difficulties in relation to understanding what was expected from him, insofar as his answering affidavit should be, due to the fact that the allegations were serious wild-hearsay he could not understand what informed the allegations as the person who had deposed the affidavit seemingly was deposing the affidavit on behalf of unknown complaints against him, however, he had to answer to the allegations as best as he could. In answering he denied all allegations levelled against him without any contra submissions or averments.
The court said that the respondent replied with a bare denial and further pleaded that certain allegations and matters are sub judice. The court added that the respondent further submitted in court that –
The court said that the respondent further contended that, he responded to the complaints by filling his answering affidavit in response thereto. The court added that it was clear the respondent’s grievance was that no formal disciplinary hearing was conducted by the LPC and that it would have been ideal for him that he should have been called for a proper disciplinary hearing and that the hearing conducted and concluded. The court added that the respondent was of a view that it was unfair and unjust that the LPC took the decision based on faceless complaints, hearsay allegations and the responses thereto. The court said that it was of the view that the respondent’s contentions were incorrect. That nothing expels the applicants from taking a decision based on the evidence in the form of affidavits.
The court said that the LPC submitted legal argument in that bare denials and sub judice pleas are not substantial, that the respondent wholly fails to plead with sufficient particularity and specify as required in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court. The court pointed out that the LPC said that accordingly, in terms of the rule as set out in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A), this application must be granted. Making reference to the salient decision of the SCA applies:
‘A real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact can exist only where the court is satisfied that the party who purports to raise the dispute has in his affidavit seriously and unambiguously addressed the fact said to be disputed. There will of course be instances where a bare denial meets the requirement because there is no other way open to the disputing party and nothing more can therefore be expected of him. But even that may not be sufficient if the fact averred lies purely within the knowledge of the averring party and no basis is laid for disputing the veracity or accuracy of the averment. When the facts averred are such that the disputing party must necessarily possess knowledge of them and be able to provide an answer (or countervailing evidence) if they be not true or accurate but, instead of doing so, rest his case on a bare or ambiguous denial the court will generally have difficulty in finding that the test is satisfied. I say “generally” because factual averments seldom stand apart from a broader matrix of circumstances all of which needs to be borne in mind when arriving at a decision. A litigant may not necessarily recognise or understand the nuances of a bare or general denial as against a real attempt to grapple with all the relevant factual allegations made by the other party. But when he signs the answering affidavit, he commits himself to its contents, inadequate as they may be, and will only in exceptional circumstances be permitted to disavow them. There is thus a serious duty imposed upon a legal adviser who settles an answering affidavit to ascertain and engage with facts which his client disputes and to reflect such disputes fully and accurately in the answering affidavit. If that does not happen it should come as no surprise that the court takes a robust view of the matter’ (Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA) at para 13).
The applicant referred to a pertinent decision of the SCA in that: ‘Advocates are required to be of complete honesty, reliability and integrity. The need for absolute honesty and integrity applies both in relation to the duties owed to their clients as well as to the courts. The profession has strict ethical rules to prevent malfeasance. This is for good reason. As officers of the court, advocates serve a necessary role in the proper administration of justice. Given the unique position that they occupy, the profession has strict ethical rules.’
The court said it is of a view that the rules of natural justice were observed by the LPC in its instance because the respondent seized the opportunity to answer to the complaints by filling answering affidavits in response thereto. The audi alteram partem principle was adhered to. The court in its exercise of discretion, having consider the facts in their totality and having heard submissions of both parties, found that the respondent’s acts of misconduct were serious and dishonest. The court pointed out that it was mindful that the main consideration was the protection of the public.
The court said that the respondent was admitted as an advocate in 2009. The court added that given his years of experience, he is required to be completely honest and reliable and perform with integrity. That the need for absolute honesty and integrity applies both in the relation to the duties owed to their clients as well as the courts. The court said that the legal profession has strict ethical rules to prevent malfeasance. The court pointed out that it is for a good reason. And as officers of court, advocates serve a necessary role in the proper administration of justice. Given the unique position that they occupy, the profession has strict ethical rules.
The court said that the respondent as a legal practitioner should have concentrated in fulfilling a dual function by assisting his clients on the one hand and by promoting justice in society on the other hand. The court pointed out that the respondent had no absolute regard for justice.
Some of the orders the court made in the premises were as follows:
Kgomotso Ramotsho Cert Journ (Boston) Cert Photography (Vega) is the news reporter at De Rebus.
This article was first published in De Rebus in 2022 (Nov) DR 28.
De Rebus proudly displays the “FAIR” stamp of the Press Council of South Africa, indicating our commitment to adhere to the Code of Ethics for Print and online media, which prescribes that our reportage is truthful, accurate and fair. Should you wish to lodge a complaint about our news coverage, please lodge a complaint on the Press Council’s website at www.presscouncil.org.za or e-mail the complaint to enquiries@ombudsman.org.za. Contact the Press Council at (011) 4843612.
South African COVID-19 Coronavirus. Access the latest information on: www.sacoronavirus.co.za
|