General Council of the Bar of South Africa v Jiba and Others

The General Council of the Bar of South Africa (GCB) instituted disciplinary proceedings in the Gauteng Division of the High Court under section 7 of the Admission of Advocates Act 74 of 1964, seeking to have Advocates Nomgcobo Jiba, Lawrence Mrwebi and Sibongile Mzinyathi struck from the roll or suspended. The application was based on adverse credibility findings made against them in prior litigation (the Mdluli, Booysen and Zuma matters), where courts criticised their conduct, including alleged false statements under oath, failure to disclose records under rule 53, and attempts to mislead courts. The High Court struck Jiba and Mrwebi from the roll but dismissed the case against Mzinyathi and ordered the GCB to pay his costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal (by majority) reinstated Jiba, suspended Mrwebi for six months, and upheld the costs order in favour of Mzinyathi. The GCB sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the merits and costs.

Leave to appeal on the merits was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Leave to appeal on costs was granted. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s order dismissing the GCB’s counter-appeal with costs was set aside, as was the High Court’s order requiring the GCB to pay Mzinyathi’s costs. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the limits of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction in professional disciplinary matters, emphasising that disputes grounded purely in statute and factual assessment do not automatically raise constitutional issues. It also authoritatively restates the costs principle applicable to regulatory and professional bodies acting in the public interest, protecting them from adverse costs orders unless they act recklessly or irresponsibly.