H E T Mabaso v Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Another

The applicant was admitted as an attorney by the Bophuthatswana High Court under the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act of 1984. He thereafter sought enrolment as an attorney in KwaZulu-Natal and the Northern Provinces using the shortcut procedure in section 20 of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979. Although initially enrolled by registrars, the Law Society of the Northern Provinces objected on the basis that section 20 applies only to attorneys admitted under the Attorneys Act, not former homeland legislation. Due to an administrative oversight, the registrar enrolled the applicant despite the objection. The Law Society successfully applied to the High Court to have his name removed from the roll. The applicant’s constitutional challenge to section 20, alleging unfair discrimination, was dismissed. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal failed due to persistent procedural non-compliance, and the SCA refused condonation without considering the constitutional issue. The applicant then sought special leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was refused and the applicant’s challenge failed; the refusal of condonation by the Supreme Court of Appeal stood, and the High Court order removing the applicant’s name from the roll of attorneys remained effective.

The case clarifies the Constitutional Court’s approach where the Supreme Court of Appeal refuses condonation without deciding a constitutional issue. It affirms the high threshold for interfering with discretionary refusals of condonation and underscores the importance of procedural compliance, even in constitutional litigation. It also confirms that section 20 of the Attorneys Act does not automatically apply to attorneys admitted under former homeland legislation.