- The Supreme Court of Appeal refused to hear an attorney’s appeal because it was filed nearly 11 months late.
- The court found he repeatedly continued practising despite suspension, striking off and contempt orders.
- Punitive costs were awarded against him, and his attorneys were criticised for preparing a defective appeal record.
An attorney who continued practising after being struck off the roll of legal practitioners has suffered another setback after the Supreme Court of Appeal refused to entertain his late appeal. The court found that he repeatedly ignored court orders and showed little respect for the legal profession’s regulatory system.
The judgment concerns Lebohang Michael Sondhlane, who was struck from the roll following complaints investigated by the South African Legal Practice Council. Although he attempted to challenge an order enforcing his striking off while appeal processes unfolded, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that his notice of appeal was filed almost 11 months late and that the delay was inadequately explained.
Judge of Appeal F Kathree Setiloane said, “The delay in noting the appeal, 11 months, is inordinate, and the applicant’s explanation for it is inadequate and unacceptable.”
Continued practising despite court orders
A central feature of the judgment was Sondhlane’s conduct after courts had already ordered his suspension and later his removal from the roll.
The court heard that after being suspended from practice, Sondhlane maintained that pending appeal proceedings entitled him to continue operating his practice and appearing in court. The Legal Practice Council disagreed and warned that such conduct could amount to contempt of court.
Despite those warnings, he continued practising. The High Court in the Free State later found him guilty of contempt after concluding that he had wilfully disobeyed a court order suspending him from practice.
The Supreme Court of Appeal also considered evidence that after being struck from the roll, Sondhlane changed his surname and practised under a different firm name. The court found the explanation difficult to ignore.
Judge Setiloane said, “The inescapable inference to be drawn from the applicant’s name change and that of his practice is that he did this to continue practising as an attorney, despite the striking off order.”
Evidence before the court showed that he accepted instructions in a criminal matter and attempted to represent an accused person despite orders preventing him from practising. He later conceded that he was in contempt of court and agreed to an order declaring him guilty of contempt.
Complaints that led to striking off
The striking off proceedings arose from two complaints investigated by the Legal Practice Council. One complaint involved client Xolile Yawa, who paid R45 000 for legal work that was never carried out. Investigators found that money paid into a trust account had been transferred into Sondhlane’s business account, while explanations provided during the investigation could not be substantiated.
The second complaint was brought by Mathabo Emily Tau and related to the administration of her late husband’s estate. Investigators concluded that more than R1 million had been transferred from the estate account for purposes unrelated to the estate and without the necessary authority.
The High Court was highly critical of Sondhlane’s handling of both matters. In relation to the Yawa complaint, the court remarked, “He handled the trust account the same way that a street hawker deals with his customers, no paper trail.”
Regarding the Tau estate, the court found, “His conduct was more than brazen,” and said the withdrawals occurred while a widow and her children were waiting for financial support from the estate.
The High Court ultimately concluded that Sondhlane lacked the honesty, accountability and integrity expected of an attorney and ordered that his name be struck from the roll.
Appeal fails
Before the Supreme Court of Appeal, Sondhlane sought condonation for the late filing of his appeal against an execution order that allowed the striking off order to operate immediately.
He argued that delays in obtaining reasons for judgment and court records contributed to the late filing. The court rejected that explanation, noting that comprehensive reasons had already been delivered and that lengthy periods of delay remained unexplained.
Judge Setiloane found that the interests of justice did not favour granting condonation, particularly in light of Sondhlane’s repeated disregard for court orders.
The judge said the attorney had displayed “a contemptuous attitude towards the judicial system” and was “a danger to the public”. The court refused condonation, effectively bringing the appeal to an end and leaving the striking off order firmly in place.
The Supreme Court of Appeal also criticised the manner in which the appeal record had been prepared, describing it as disorganised and poorly compiled. As a result, Sondhlane was ordered to pay the Legal Practice Council’s costs on an attorney and client scale, while his attorneys were directed to personally pay the costs associated with preparing the appeal record.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
