Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Christiaan Serfontein Edeling

Mr Christiaan Serfontein Edeling was admitted as an advocate in 1979 and practised at various Bars. In 1997 he was struck off the roll of advocates following findings that he had participated in dishonest and simulated property transactions designed to defraud the fiscus of VAT, had perjured himself before the Special Income Tax Court and the High Court, and had made unjustified, intemperate attacks on members of the Johannesburg Bar. His applications for leave to appeal were dismissed. In 2009 and again in 2015 he applied for re-admission and re-enrolment as an advocate. The Johannesburg Society of Advocates opposed both applications, contending that he had not made full and frank disclosure, had resumed practice in Lesotho without proper disclosure or authority, and had failed to demonstrate genuine, complete and permanent reformation. The Gauteng Division of the High Court granted his 2015 application for re-admission. The Society appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court granting re-admission was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Mr Edeling’s application for re-admission with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case reaffirms the stringent standard applied to applications for re-admission of advocates struck off for dishonesty. It emphasises that re-admission is not punitive but protective of the public, the courts and the profession, and that genuine reformation requires full insight, acceptance of wrongdoing, and complete candour. The judgment underscores the role of professional bodies as custos morum and clarifies that fitness and propriety are not territorially confined.