Maponya and Another v South African Legal Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 144; 48141/21 (27 February 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 144 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Maponya and Another v South African Legal Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 144; 48141/21 (27 February 2023) Maponya and Another v South African Legal Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 144; 48141/21 (27 February 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_144.html sino date 27 February 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO. 48141/21 REPORTABLE: NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO REVISED: YES/NO 27/02/2023 In the matter between: MAKHUDUGA HARRIET MAPONYA First Appellant MAPONYA (MAPULANA)NINCORPORATED                                        Second Appellant AND SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL COUNCIL                                                              Respondent JUDGMENT MAKHOBA J 1. On the 15 June 2022 Budlender AJ delivered a judgement whereby the first respondent was suspended to practice as a legal practitioner. 2. On the 25 th August 2022 the legal practice council lodged an application before me that the order dated 15 June 2022 should not be suspended pending a decision in an application for leave to appeal either to this court or to the supreme court of appeal and that the order should remain in force. 3. Counsel for the applicant addressed the count and submitted that the respondent’s clients and former clients, members of the general public and the attorney’s profession will suffer irreparable harm should the order dated 15 June 2022 not be made operational. 4. In motivating the application counsel for the applicant pointed out that the irreparable harm lies therein that substantial amounts of money of the complainants having already been deposited in the respondent’s account might not be retrieved should the respondent be allowed to proceed with her practice until the appeal had been finalised. 5. Section 18 (3) of the superior courts Act 10 of 2013 provides that the court may grant an order which order is to be executed where the applicant has illustrated that he or she will suffer irreparable harm if the court does not so order and that the other party will not suffer irreparable harm if the court so orders. 6. In opposing the application, the respondent filed an answering affidavit. In the affidavit the respondent submitted that leave to appeal against the judgement of Budlender AJ will succeed. She further submits that the matter is not urgent and no exceptional circumstances exists, as envisaged in section 18 of the superior Act for the immediate enforcement of the matter. 7. After hearing both council I gave the order as per case-lines 000-1 the reasons for the order were given in court however the respondent did not transcribe my initial judgement. 8. In a nutshell I found the application to be urgent based on the submission by counsel for the applicant and the judgement by Budlender AJ. 9. I stand by my reasons given in court on the 25 th August 2022 D. MAKHOBA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff:                      Adv S.M Leso Instruction:                              Mapulana Maponya Inc For the Defendant:                 Adv John Mohoto Instructed by: Date heard:                              25 August 2022 Date delivered:                         25/08/2022 sino noindex make_database footer start