Siyabonga Gugulethu Galela, a budding legal professional, has successfully secured her admission to practice as a legal practitioner following a drawn-out legal saga that began with her initial application dismissal by the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria.
The journey commenced in June 2023 when Galela sought to affirm her standing as a legal practitioner. Her application was supported by academic records from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), evidencing that she had successfully obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in December 2018 and qualified for her LLB degree in December 2020. However, significant hurdles arose from her failure to submit the requisite LLB certificate, coupled with concerning disclosures about her active directorship in a company while pursuing her legal vocational training.
In her initial ex parte application, the Gauteng Provincial Office of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) swiftly pinpointed two critical issues affecting her case. Firstly, Galela had not included her LLB certificate alongside her application. Secondly, she had submitted an affidavit under oath claiming she was not engaged in any other business aside from her role as a candidate legal practitioner. The LPC’s investigations later revealed her active directorship in a firm named Varsigator Solutions, prompting a request for a supplementary affidavit to clarify her situation.
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria ultimately dismissed her application, citing her non-disclosure of the directorship as indicative of a lack of integrity and good standing, attributes deemed essential for aspiring legal professionals. Galela proceeded to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Appeal, seeking renewed consideration of her circumstances.
During the appeal hearing on 4 November 2024, the court deliberated on two paramount issues: whether Galela had been transparent about her directorship and her financial responsibilities. The Supreme Court’s findings reflected that Galela’s omission regarding Varsigator’s status amounted more to negligence than any dire intent to deceive. Numerous supporting affidavits, including those from her mother and her principal at Werksmans Attorneys, affirmed that Galela had received no financial benefit from Varsigator, thereby underscoring the fortitude of her claim that her business involvement had no bearing on her vocational training.
She and a friend had set up the business on the strength of R300 000 provided by her mother in exchange for a 20 percent share in the business. This was paid to a company to develop the app. The development ultimately failed and the business did not get off the ground. Varsigator never opened a bank account, it received no income, as a result of which it filed no tax returns.
Galela attempted to recoup the monies from the development company and left the process of deregistration to her mother. In hindsight, she acknowledges that this was irresponsible and that she should have driven the process of deregistration of Varsigator, or at least conducted enquiries as to its status at the time of launching her application for admission. Galela’s supplementary affidavit has set out a proper explanation as to why she did not disclose that she was a director of Varsigator. In short, the business failed. As a result Varsigator never opened a bank account, received no income and did not file tax returns. The court ruled her non-disclosure, albeit negligent, was not intended to deceive nor did the directorship interfere with her proper training.
Providing additional context, Galela elaborated on her challenging financial circumstances stemming from familial difficulties that had hindered her ability to settle her university fees, which were reported to have since been resolved. Her claims illustrated her desire to pursue a fruitful career in law despite past monetary hurdles.
On the issue of Galela’s LLB certificate, it was established that Wits withholds degree certificates from students with outstanding debts. She clarified that her academic transcript should be sufficient proof of her qualifications.
However, the court did note the importance of presenting comprehensive evidence supporting her claims, remarking that while they would not bar a struggling graduate from the profession, they also required substantial proof of good character and financial integrity.
Ultimately, the ruling by the Supreme Court reinstated Galela’s application, acknowledging her compliance with the necessary legal provisions for entry into the profession. The court concluded with a resolution that Galela had demonstrated good cause for her earlier infractions, paving the way for her enrolment as an attorney of the High Court of South Africa under the Legal Practice Act of 2014.