Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 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 319 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023) Mangolela v South African Legal Practice Council [2023] ZAGPPHC 319; 91612/2019 (28 March 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_319.html sino date 28 March 2023 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number: 91612 /2019 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO (4) DATE: 28 MARCH 2023 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: STEPHEN MANGOLELA Applicant and THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Respondent In re: THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL Applicant and STEPHEN MANGOLELA First Respondent MANGOLELA INCORPORTED ATTORNEYS Second Respondent JUDGMENT MOGALE AJ: [1]        This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order of this court dated 23 November 2022. [2]        The application is brought in terms of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii), to wit, that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and/or there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. [3]        Having carefully considered the grounds of appeal, I am of the view that the grounds of appeal do not satisfy the threshold contained in section 17(1)(i) nor does a compelling reason exists to grant leave of appeal. [4]        In the result, I am of the view that the application should be dismissed. Mr Groome, the attorney that appeared on behalf of the respondent, requested that the customary cost order in applications involving the Legal Practice Council, to wit on a scale between attorney and client should be awarded. I can find no reason to deviate from the customary cost order and the order will follow. ORDER I propose the following order: The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale. K MOGALE ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA I agree and it is so ordered. N. JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DATE HEARD: 02 March 2023 DATE DELIVERED: 28 March 2023 APPEARANCES For the Applicant: Advocate A Rafik Bhana SC B Brandon Casey Instructed by: AM Nduna Attorneys For the Respondents: Mr. L Groome Instructed by: RW Attorneys Inc sino noindex make_database footer start