Mamolatelo Alfred Selota v The South African Legal Practice Council

The appellant, Mr Mamolatelo Alfred Selota, was admitted as an attorney in 2008 and practised for his own account. In 2018, the South African Legal Practice Council (SALPC) launched proceedings in the Gauteng Division of the High Court to remove him from the roll of attorneys, alleging, among other things, that he practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate, had trust account deficits, and overreached clients. Shortly before the hearing of that application, Selota brought an urgent application seeking a declaratory order that he was entitled to a Fidelity Fund certificate for 2019. The High Court dismissed that application with costs. Selota appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), but failed to timeously file heads of argument, causing the appeal to lapse. He then sought condonation and reinstatement of the appeal. By that time, he had already been suspended from practice pending finalisation of the main application, largely because he practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate.

The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the main matter was struck from the roll with costs.

The case reaffirms the application of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, emphasising that appellate courts will not entertain appeals that are moot or have no practical effect. It underscores judicial economy and clarifies that declaratory relief will not be granted where it cannot alter existing legal consequences, particularly in the context of professional regulation of legal practitioners.