- The High Court ordered suspended attorney Tando Ongama Dlabantu to provide security for the Legal Practice Council’s legal costs.
- Judges found his pending review application appeared unsustainable and formed part of a history of protracted litigation.
- Failure to furnish the security within 20 days of the amount being determined could result in his review application being struck out.
The High Court in Bloemfontein has ordered suspended attorney Tando Ongama Dlabantu to provide security for the legal costs of the South African Legal Practice Council (LPC) before he can continue with his review application challenging decisions linked to his suspension.
Judge PJ Loubser, with Judge PE Molitsoane concurring, ruled that the LPC had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the order, citing Dlabantu’s history of repeated litigation and his failure to pay previous costs orders exceeding R276,300.
Long-running disciplinary dispute
The legal battle began after Dlabantu was suspended from the roll of legal practitioners in November 2024 for gross professional misconduct. The suspension followed findings that he had practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate and failed to pay mandatory annual fees and Fidelity Fund contributions.
Following the suspension, Dlabantu launched several legal challenges in both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. While he continued pursuing appeals and reconsideration applications, the LPC successfully obtained multiple costs orders against him, which remained unpaid.
The pending review application seeks to overturn decisions taken by the LPC that ultimately led to disciplinary proceedings against him.
Legal Practice Council sought protection
The LPC approached the High Court for an order compelling Dlabantu to furnish security for costs before the review could proceed. It argued that his litigation history had become vexatious, reckless and unnecessarily expensive, placing an unfair financial burden on the statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession.
The council told the court that previous taxed costs remained outstanding despite repeated opportunities for payment.
Court finds review lacks prospects
Judge Loubser found that Dlabantu’s review application appeared unsustainable because the LPC’s decision to refer disciplinary allegations to court did not constitute administrative action capable of being reviewed under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
The judgment held that suspension and striking-off proceedings are unique disciplinary matters determined by the court itself, rather than administrative decisions made by the LPC.
The court also rejected Dlabantu’s argument that he was justified in withholding payment of earlier costs while appeal processes remained pending, finding that he had sufficient opportunity to settle those liabilities.
Public interest remains central
In its reasoning, the court emphasised that the Legal Practice Council has a duty to protect both the public and practising attorneys. Allowing a suspended practitioner to continue extensive litigation without accountability for previous costs, the judges found, would undermine that responsibility.
The court concluded that the circumstances justified both an order for security for costs and a punitive costs order against Dlabantu.
Court order
The High Court ordered Dlabantu to furnish security in an amount to be determined by the Taxing Master within 20 days of that determination.
If he fails to provide the security, the Legal Practice Council may apply to have his pending review application struck from the roll. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the security application on the attorney-and-client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
