Case Law[2025] ZAGPPHC 858South Africa
Government of the Republic of Zambia v Lungu and Others (2025-096565) [2025] ZAGPPHC 858 (8 August 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
8 August 2025
Headnotes
Summary:
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 858
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Government of the Republic of Zambia v Lungu and Others (2025-096565) [2025] ZAGPPHC 858 (8 August 2025)
Government of the Republic of Zambia v Lungu and Others (2025-096565) [2025] ZAGPPHC 858 (8 August 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_858.html
sino date 8 August 2025
FLYNOTES:
FAMILY
– Burial –
President
of Zambia –
Repatriation
– Context of documents indicated clear agreement to
repatriate body for state funeral – Principle
of pacta sunt
servanda applied – Binding agreement – Zambian Law
selected as lex causae – Public policy
required that
deceased heads of state be accorded state funeral –
Outweighed family’s personal preferences –
Binding
agreement existed for repatriation – Objections were
unsubstantiated – Application granted.
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number:
2025-096565
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
(3)
REVISED: YES
DATE
8 August 2025
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
GOVERNMENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF
ZAMBIA
Applicant
and
ESTHER
LUNGU
First Respondent
BERTHA
LUNGU
Second Respondent
TASILA
LUNGU
Third
Respondent
DALIESO
LUNGU
Fourth Respondent
CHIYESO
LUNGU
Fifth Respondent
CHARLES
PHIRI
Sixth Respondent
MAKEBI
ZULU
Seventh
Respondent
TWO
MOUNTAINS
Eighth Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
AND
COOPERATION
Ninth Respondent
Summary:
This
judgment was prepared and authored by the Court whose names are
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation
to the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
The date for
handing down is deemed to be 8 August 2025.
JUDGMENT
CORAM:
LEDWABA AJP, MUDAU ADJP et POTTERILL J (THE COURT)
Introduction
[1]
On 24 June 2025 the applicant, the Government of Zambia represented
by the Attorney-General [the
Government] launched this urgent
application for an order,
inter alia
, seeking that the eighth
respondent, Two Mountains [the funeral parlour] be ordered to keep
and to preserve the body of the late
President Lungu and not to
remove or to dispose of it in any manner pending finalisation of the
application seeking the repatriation
of the body. The
application was to be instituted on or before 22 July 2025. The
funeral parlour did not partake in
the proceedings. The ninth
respondent, the Minister of International Relations and
Cooperation, was joined and then
removed, had notice of the
application but chose not to participate. Nothing turns
thereon.
[2]
On 25 June 2025, this court, per Ledwaba DJP, pursuant to an
agreement by the parties ordered
that the funeral and burial of the
late President Lungu be suspended pending the determination of the
main application. The
respondents opposed the main application
and for ease of reference the first to sixth respondents are referred
as the “Family”
of the late President Lungu. The
seventh respondent, Makebi Zulu [Mr Zulu], the late President Lungu’s
attorney participated
in negotiations between the Government and the
Family but did not partake in the proceedings before us.
[3]
Despite the above order by agreement between the parties, the
Government brought an
ex parte
application on 2 July 2025,
seeking to vary the consent order granted by Ledwaba DJP. In the
ex
parte
application the applicant alleged that the original order
implicitly required the funeral parlour to continue caring for the
late
President Lungu's body indefinitely pending the hearing of this
application. This application was granted. Bringing
such
an
ex parte
application is frowned upon by this Court.
[4]
In the amended notice of motion the Government sought a declaratory
order that it is entitled
to repatriate the late President Lungu’s
body for a state funeral and burial thereafter in Embassy Park,
Lusaka, Republic
of Zambia. The funeral parlour is authorised
and ordered upon demand by the Sheriff of this Court to surrender the
body of
the late President Lungu to a representative or
representatives of the Zambia High Commission to enable the
Government to repatriate
the body to Zambia for a state funeral and
burial. The Family is authorised to be present when
repatriation is executed and
an Aide De Camp, the late president’s
personal physician and two Family members (subject to such
restrictions the applicant
may reasonably impose), accompany the
coffin containing the body of the late President Lungu during the
repatriation.
[5]
Both parties filed applications to strike-out certain phrases and/or
paragraphs of the affidavits
alleging that these allegations are
vexatious, irrelevant and scandalous or constituted hearsay
evidence. Furthermore, the
Family filed an application for
condonation for the late filing of a conditional counterclaim to
declare an alleged agreement between
the parties pertaining to the
repatriation and burial void, if the court should find that such
agreement was reached. The
Government opposed this application
for condonation.
Joinder application
[6]
Mr Vincent Kafula, a Zambian national currently residing in Cape
Town, sought to intervene in
these proceedings on allegations that he
has “a substantial interest in upholding the Constitution of
Zambia, international
human rights law, and the affairs of Zambia”.
He contends
inter alia
that, “what Zambia requires at
this critical juncture is national reconciliation and the
rectification of unconstitutional
laws that undermine democratic
principles. Although this court may lack direct jurisdiction, it can
issue a declaratory order to
guide the Constitutional Court of Zambia
in affirming and enforcing these necessary changes for the public
good”.
[7]
The test for joinder is whether the non-joined party has a direct and
substantial interest, i.e.
a legal interest in the subject matter of
the litigation which may be affected prejudicially by the judgment of
the court.
In that circumstance it is a necessary party and
should accordingly be joined in such proceedings.
[1]
[8]
Joinder, ordinarily, would occur to ensure that persons who have an
interest in the subject matter
of an existing dispute or have rights
which may be affected by the judgment of the court in such a dispute
are before the court.
In argument Mr Kafula was constrained to
concede that this Court has no jurisdiction over the Zambian courts
and that the relief
sought in that regard is incompetent. Mr
Kafula thus has no direct and substantial interest in the relief
sought. Furthermore,
the question of joinder of Mr. Kafula on
account of his Zambian nationality does not arise in this matter.
This court dismissed
the intervention application but made no order
as to costs.
Common cause facts
[9]
The late President Lungu served as President of the Republic of
Zambia from January 2015 until
August 2021, as the leader of a
political party in the Republic of Zambia, called the Patriotic
Front. The late President
Lungu initially received the
customary benefits accorded to former heads of state under the
Zambian Benefits of Former Presidents
Act, 1993. On 28 October
2023 when he announced his return to active politics his benefits
were withdrawn according to section
5(1)(b) of the Act that provides
as follows: “The pension and other benefits conferred by
this Act shall not be paid,
assigned or provided to a former
President who is … or (b) engaged in active politics”.
The late President
Lungu’s access to state security,
housing, transport and medical support was terminated.
[10]
The Benefits Act provides for pension and other retirement benefits
of former Presidents of the Republic
of Zambia. It also provides in
Section 4(1)(b) set out in the Schedule to the Act, for the payment
of a former President's funeral
expenses.
[11]
The late President Lungu arrived in South Africa on 19 January 2025
for medical treatment. The President
unfortunately passed away
on 5 June 2025. It is common cause that as a Zambian citizen
Zambia was the late President Lungu's
permanent place of residence.
Following the announcement of the passing of the late President, the
current President of Zambia,
Mr. Hakainde Hichilema on 6 June 2025
dispatched a delegation of senior government officials led by the
Zambian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Haimbe, and International
Cooperation, to engage the Family and to discuss the logistics for
the repatriation of the mortal
remains of the late President to
Zambia. Mr Zulu acted as spokesperson for the Family during
these engagements.
[12]
The delegation was informed,
inter alia
, that the Family
wanted to conduct a post-mortem on 9 June 2025 that was supposed to
be undertaken by a private pathologist from
abroad. In addition,
that, the Family was looking at departing Johannesburg, South Africa,
for Lusaka, Zambia on Wednesday, 11
June 2025, aboard a private
charter plane which the Family had already arranged. Also, the Family
had planned to transport the
body to Ndola, where the late President
Lungu was born, Kitwe, where he lived during his formative years, and
Petauke, where he
hailed from. This was intended to provide the
opportunity to the late President's supporters and friends to pay
their last respects
before proceeding to Lusaka. In addition, that
Zambians living in South Africa had also requested the Family to
allow for a Memorial
Service in his honour since most of them would
not be able to travel to Zambia for the funeral, a request that had
been considered.
[13]
Minister Haimbe thereafter conveyed to the Family the applicant's
envisaged logistical arrangements, that
the Applicant had following
the privileges due to a former head of state when they pass on,
declared seven days of national mourning
beginning the date of death;
the applicant would provide a military aircraft to transport the late
President's mortal remains and
mourners back to Zambia at the
earliest possible date preferably the 7 or 8 June, 2025, arrange full
military honours at send off
and arrival in Lusaka. The Applicant
committed to purchasing a lockable casket and to paying for all
associated expenses relating
to the funeral. It was conveyed
that a burial place would be prepared at Embassy Park, which is the
designated burial site
for all deceased Zambian Presidents. The
Secretary to the Zambian Cabinet issued a Press Statement on 7 June
2025, in which he
informed the Zambian public, inter alia, that the
President of Zambia has accorded a state funeral to the late
President Lungu,
whose body will arrive in Zambia on Wednesday, 11
June 2025.
[14]
There were further meetings that followed. A second delegation to
negotiate with the Family was led by the
Hon. Mr. Enock Kavindele,
former Vice President of Zambia, accompanied by Mr. Lesley Mbula,
former Secretary to the Cabinet and
former Zambian High Commissioner
to South Africa. Also included was Mr. Patrick Kangwa, Secretary to
the Cabinet. On 10 June 2025
at City Lodge, Waterfalls, the
delegation met with representatives of the Family. Mr Zulu again
acted as the Family's spokesperson.
From this meeting, it was agreed
that the Family would purchase their preferred casket that was
lockable; the Family would use
a chartered aircraft, while government
officials would use a Zambia Air Force aircraft that was on the
ground for any eventualities.
[15]
Annexure “FAA7” sets out what the parties agreed. For
convenience, it is reproduced as is:
“
Program
for Repatriation, Funeral and Burial of the 6th Republican President,
Dr. Edgar Chagwai Lungu
Wednesday 18th June 2025:
- Departure of Body from
Funeral Parlor to Lanseria Airport Arrival of body at Lanseria
Airport Family and body depart Lanseria
Aboard a Private Charter.
-Arrival at Lusaka and
receiving of the Body at KKIA by the Family- Military honours
-Departure
for the house in Chifwema where the body will lay (sic) in state.
Thursday 19th June 2025:
-Departure of Body from
Funeral house in Chifwema to Mulungushi Conference Centre old wing.
-Prayer and commencement
of body viewing from 09:00 to 16:00
- Return of the body to
Chifwema to lay (sic) in state
Friday 20th June 2025
- Departure of Body from
Funeral house in Chifwema to Mulungushi Conference centre, old wing.
- Prayer and commencement
of body viewing from 09:00 to 16:00. Return of the body to Chifwema
to lay (sic) in state
Saturday 20th June 2025
Departure of Body from the Funeral house in Chifwema to Mulungushi
Conference centre, old wing. Prayer and
commencement of body viewing
from 09:00 to 16:00
-Return of the body to
Chifwema to lay (sic) in state
Sunday 21" June 2025
-State Funeral at
Mulungushi conference centre, hosting foreign dignitaries
Monday
22nd
-valedictory session at
the Supreme Court Church service by Bishop Alick Banda at Showgrounds
- Burial
1. National mourning to
be extended
2. The body to always lay
(sic) in state at Chifwema
3. The body to always be
accompanied by a relative, the ADC, and Dr .....
4. Parties will consult
and agree on who speaks at all events.
5. Hon. Given Lubinda to
speak on behalf of the Patriotic Front Party”.
[16] Mr
Zulu in a separate televised briefing confirmed the agreement,
inter
alia
, firstly that the body of the late president Lungu shall be
transported together with the Family from Lanseria airport in South
Africa to Zambia on Wednesday, 18 June 2025 using a private charter
made available to the Family by well-wishers. Secondly, following
the
arrival and receipt of the body by Family members in Lusaka, full
military honours will be conducted at the Kenneth Kaunda
International Airport, after which the body shall be taken to the
funeral house in Chifwema, where it will lie in state. Thirdly,
that
the body of the former president will be taken to Mulungushi
International Conference Centre on Thursday 19th June, Friday
20th
June and Saturday 21st June to enable members of the public to pay
their last respects from 09:00 to 16:00, after which it
shall be
returned on all days to the funeral house in Chifwema to lie in
state. In addition to avoid the confusion that has been
ongoing
relating to the Patriotic Front Party, the Honourable Given Lubinda
will speak on behalf of the Patriotic Front Party.
[17] On
18 June 2025, and shortly before the body of the late President was
due to be transported to the Lanseria
Airport for repatriation, the
Family informed that the body of the late President would not be
arriving at Lanseria Airport, that
the late President's body would
remain at the mortuary and that the Family had decided that the late
President would be buried
in South Africa in a private funeral.
The issues to be decided
[18]
The main issue to decide is whether an agreement was reached
pertaining to the repatriation and burial of
the former late
President. Furthermore, whether Zambian law or South African
law is applicable, affording whom a right to
burial.
The Government’s
submissions
[19] On
behalf of the Government it was argued that it accepted the Family’s
proposal that was recorded
in annexure “FAA7”. This
was further confirmed in the press briefing, despite the Family now
contending that
the press statement was false because “no
agreement that the remains would be repatriated” existed.
Furthermore,
in terms of the agreement a tentative programme was
drawn up by the Family, and that programme reflected that the body of
the late
President would be repatriated to Zambia on a private
charter plane on 18 June 2025 for purposes of a state funeral and
burial
on 22 June 2025. This agreement was confirmed during a
joint briefing of the Government and the Family at the Rivonia
Southern
Sun hotel. It was argued that the Family clearly
agreed to the terms as set out, but has breached the agreement.
[20]
The Government contended that the domicile, habitual residence, and
nationality of the late President and
the Family are connecting
factors that would point to Zambian Law as the proper
lex
causae
.
Reliance was placed on the matter of
Society
of Lloyd's v Price; Society of Lloyd's v Lee
2006
(5) SA 393
(SCA) wherein the SCA found that where there is a
potential conflict between the two applicable systems of law, that
“via
media approach is the appropriate one in dealing with the
kind of problem with which we are now confronted. Not only does it
take
cognisance of both the
lex
fori
and
the
lex
causae
in
characterising the relevant legal rules, but it also enables the
court, after this characterisation has been made, to determine
in a
flexible and sensitive manner which legal system has the closest and
most real connection with the dispute before it.”
[2]
.
[21]
Counsel for the Government further pointed out that in terms of
Zambian law, public policy requires that
the wishes of a late
President or his/her Family yield before the requirement that
deceased heads of state be afforded a state
funeral and burial at
Embassy Park. In selecting Zambian law as the
lex causae
, this
Court ensures that the Zambian legal principles are harmonised and
that the policies underlying the relevant legal rule are
respected
and upheld. Further, in this regard, the court was referred to the
case of
The People v Secretary to the Cabinet Ex parte Kaweche
Kaunda
(HP768 of 2021)
[2021] ZMHC 6
(7 July 2021). The Zambian
Court found that a state funeral is a public funeral ceremony,
observing the strict rule of protocol,
held to honour people of
national significance. In addition to that, even if it was a personal
wish of the late President not to
be accorded a state funeral, such a
wish must be overridden by the public interest. This decision, we
find, is persuasive.
The Family’s
submissions
[22]
The Family submitted that no agreement was reached. In the
alternative, and if this Court found that an agreement
was concluded,
the Family elected to cancel the agreement based on what the Family
alleged were material fraudulent misrepresentation,
alternatively
negligent misrepresentations, further alternatively innocent
misrepresentations. The misrepresentations relates
to the
Family being adamant that the current President of Zambia was not to
preside over the state funeral.
[23]
The Family also contended that, following the principle of
lex
fori
, it dictated that South African courts would apply South
African law to disputes arising within its jurisdiction, regardless
of
the nationality or domicile of the parties involved. As this is
the country where the late President Lungu passed away, the lex
causae in this instance should be the South African law.
[24]
This Court was referred to some judgments emanating from this court,
such as
Simakuhle v Simakuhle and Another (Simakuhle)
[2024]
ZAGPPHC 33 at para [36] followed by Moshoana J in
P.N and Others v
P.N
(104659/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 924 (18 September 2024) as
authority for the proposed approach, wherein Phooko AJ stated:
“
In
my view, the First Respondent, as the wife to the deceased, has
burial rights and may decide where her late husband should be
buried.”
Reference
was also made to
TM
v CM and Another
[2019]
ZAGPJHC 412 yet another unreported judgment by Adams J in which the
learned Judge stated: "Weighing up several factors
listed in the
judgment, the learned judge found that the fairest order (on the
facts of that case) was that the surviving spouse
should be allowed
to bury the deceased " in support of the Family’s
argument.
Reasons for decision
[25]
It is well-established in our law that the correct judicial approach
to the interpretation of written documents
is that the inevitable
point of departure is the language of the document itself. Words must
be given their ordinary grammatical
meaning, unless to do so would
result in absurdity. A written agreement between the parties
must be read as a whole to determine
the true intention of the
parties.
[3]
If regard is
had to the grammar and syntax of “FAA7”, the purpose for
which it was drawn up, considering that
both parties were alive to
the disputes between them, “FAA7” can only be interpreted
as an agreement between the parties.
The agreement entailing,
first and foremost, repatriation to Zambia for burial purposes.
Based upon the chronology of the
common cause facts referring to the
media briefing and the proposed programme drafted by the Family,
fortifies this finding.
There is thus no factual dispute before
this Court. The legal principle of
pacta
sunt servanda
(agreements
must be kept) also finds application.
[26] On
the issue of whether Zambian or South African law is applicable, we
took into account the decision of
Society of Lloyd’s supra
one has to determine a flexible and sensitive manner in which the
legal system has the closest and most real connection to this
dispute. The domicile, habitual residence and nationality of
the late President and the Family are connecting factors that
would
point to Zambian Law as the proper
lex causae.
[27] As
counsel for the Government pointed out, in terms of Zambian law,
public policy requires that the wishes
of a late President or his/her
Family yield before the requirement that deceased heads of state be
afforded a state funeral and
burial at Embassy Park. In
selecting Zambian law as the
lex causae,
this Court ensures
that the Zambian legal principles are harmonised and that the
policies underlying the relevant legal rule are
respected and
upheld. Further, in this regard, the court was referred to the
case of
The People v Secretary to the Cabinet Ex parte Kaweche
Kaunda
(HP768 of 2021)
[2021] ZMHC 6
(7 July 2021). That
court stated that a state funeral is a public funeral ceremony,
observing the strict rule of protocol,
held to honour people of
national significance. In addition to that, even if it
was a personal wish of the late President
not to be accorded a state
funeral, such a wish must be overridden by the public interest.
This finding too caters for the
order that follows below.
[28]
The agreement leaves no room for doubting that the current President
of Zambia would be involved in receiving
foreign dignitaries as Head
of State of the host country. Details as to who else was to
speak, other than the leader of the
opposition party that the
deceased belonged to, are trivial. The late President Lungu,
like any other President in established
democracies around the world,
deserves to be buried with the necessary dignity. This Court
cannot bar a President of another
country to attend a state funeral.
Stripped of emotive language and political posturing in the papers,
the order that follows
is intended to achieve that purpose. It
follows that the Family's counterapplication is unmeritorious and
must be dismissed.
[29] As
for the striking-out applications by both parties this Court did not
take cognisance of any vexatious,
irrelevant or scandalous averments
by any of the parties in coming to its decision. Neither party
has suffered any prejudice
and both applications are dismissed with
no orders as to costs. Despite the lateness and the paucity of
the reasons given
for the condonation application for the late filing
of the counter-application this Court considered the averred
misrepresentations,
but finds no substance in these allegations.
Costs
[30]
The Court has a discretion when awarding costs and must exercise this
discretion judicially. An order
of costs must be made upon a
consideration of the facts in this matter, and the decision thereon
is made considering the fairness
to both parties. In this
matter it is only fair and just that no order as to costs should be
made. The effect of this
order is that each party is to pay its
own costs.
[4]
Order
[31]
1. The intervention application
is dismissed. No order as to costs.
2.
The applications to strike-out are dismissed. No order as to
costs.
3.
The application for condonation and the counter-application are
dismissed. No order
as to costs.
4.
It is ordered that the applicant is entitled to repatriate the body
of the Late President
Edgar Lungu (“the late President Lungu”)
for a state funeral and burial thereafter in Embassy Park, Lusaka,
Republic
of Zambia.
5.
The Eighth Respondent is authorised and ordered upon service of the
court order by the Sheriff
of this Honourable Court, to immediately
surrender the body of the Late President Lungu to a representative or
representatives
of the Zambia High Commission to enable the Applicant
to repatriate the body to Zambia for the purposes stated in paragraph
4 above.
6.
The First to Seventh Respondents are authorised to be present when
paragraphs 4 and 5 of
this Order are executed, and an Aide De Camp,
the late president's physician, and two Family members may accompany
the coffin containing
the body of the Late President Lungu during the
repatriation
7.
There is no order as to costs, which includes reserved costs.
A.P. LEDWABA
ACTING JUDGE-PRESIDENT
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
T.P. MUDAU
ACTING DEPUTY
JUDGE-PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 2025-096565
HEARD
ON: 4 August 2025
FOR
THE APPLICANT: ADV. B.C. STOOP SC
ADV.
A. MARQUES
INSTRUCTED
BY: VFV Attorneys
FOR
THE 1
st
to 7
th
RESPONDENTS: ADV. C.J.
WELGEMOED
ADV.
M. ARROYO
INSTRUCTED
BY: Mashele Attorneys Inc.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 8 August 2025
[1]
Amalgamated
Engineering Union v Minister of Labour
1949
(3) SA 637
(A);
Henri
Viljoen (Pty) Ltd v Awerbuch Brothers
1953
(2) SA 151
(O) at 165-171;
Ex
Parte Pearson and Hutton, NNO
1967
(1) SA 103
(E) at 107C and
South
African History Archive Trust v South African Reserve Bank
and
Another
2020
(6) SA 127
(SCA) at para [30].
[2]
Para
[14]
[3]
Natal
Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality
2012
(4) SA 593
(SCA) para [18]
[4]
DE
v RH
2015
(5) SA 83
(CC) at 105D-E.
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Department of Public Works v Mvela Phanda Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (58654/2012) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1208 (20 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1208High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Maseti (20286/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1154 (30 September 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1154High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Smith and Another (65895/18) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1134 (25 September 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1134High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Mahapa (50378/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1103 (6 October 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1103High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Nonxuba and Others (2023/134003) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1143 (22 October 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1143High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar