Ndleve v Pretoria Society of Advocates

Mr Ralph Patrick Ndleve was admitted as an advocate on 18 February 2002. Between 2006 and 2013, the Pretoria Society of Advocates received at least six complaints against him detailing unethical practices including: taking instructions directly from lay clients without being briefed by an attorney, taking money from clients without the intervention of an attorney, and stealing money intended for his clients' creditors. The Society applied to the High Court to strike him from the roll of advocates. On 12 June 2013, the High Court granted the order with costs. Ndleve confessed to stealing money from his clients. His subsequent applications for leave to appeal to the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal were refused. Between October 2015 and April 2016, Ndleve filed five applications to the Constitutional Court targeting the striking-off decision, all of which were dismissed. Evidence suggested that Ndleve continued practicing as an advocate after being struck off, including appearing as counsel in October 2013 (four months after the striking-off order) and still being listed on the roll of advocates as at 4 August 2016.

• Whether the High Court judgment striking the applicant from the roll of advocates should be declared invalid and set aside
• Whether leave to appeal against the High Court's striking-off order should be granted
• Whether the applicant's repeated applications to the Constitutional Court constitute an abuse of process
• The propriety of an advocate continuing to practice after being struck from the roll
• The duty of a Society of Advocates to protect the public and the courts from practitioners who have been struck off

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court's Registrar was directed to draw the judgment and order to the attention of the Pretoria Society of Advocates and the Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A society of advocates owes a duty to the courts and the public to take appropriate steps to prevent practitioners who have been struck from the roll from continuing to practice; (2) Continued practice as an advocate after being struck from the roll constitutes unethical professional conduct and may amount to contempt of court; (3) The purpose of striking an advocate from the roll is the protection of the public, not merely punishment; (4) Repeated applications to court that are substantially identical and meritless, filed solely to delay the enforcement of an adverse order, constitute an abuse of process; (5) The duty of a society of advocates to protect the public extends to taking practical enforcement steps to stop struck-off practitioners from appearing in courts on behalf of clients.

The Court made several significant obiter observations: (1) The Court expressed concern that the applicant's continued practice after being struck off imperilled the fairness of criminal proceedings in which he appeared; (2) The Court noted that while it could not advise the Society on the practical steps to fulfil its duty, it was clear that appropriate action needed to be taken in the High Court; (3) The Court observed that the Society had sought directions from the Constitutional Court regarding how to deal with multiple applications in the same matter, indicating the Society's concern about incurring unnecessary expenses; (4) The Court commented that advising the Society on its role in taking practical enforcement steps is not something the Court can undertake, thereby clarifying the limits of the Court's advisory jurisdiction; (5) The Court noted with concern that as of 4 August 2016, the applicant was still listed on the official roll of advocates maintained by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, highlighting systemic issues with maintaining accurate professional registers.

This case reinforces the constitutional duty of societies of advocates to protect the public and the courts from unethical legal practitioners. It affirms that the purpose of striking practitioners from the roll is primarily the protection of the public rather than punishment. The judgment emphasizes that societies of advocates have an active, ongoing duty to ensure that struck-off practitioners do not continue to practice, and must take appropriate steps in court to enforce striking-off orders. The case also addresses abuse of court process through repeated meritless applications and confirms that continuing to practice after being struck off constitutes serious unethical professional conduct that may border on contempt of court. It serves as an important reminder of professional responsibilities and the enforcement mechanisms available to protect litigants and the administration of justice.