Axed UniZulu employee takes attorney misconduct battle to ConCourt

An axed University of Zululand employee has taken his long-running battle to have an attorney disbarred for alleged professional misconduct arising from her representation of the institution in his disciplinary proceedings to the highest court in the land.

Ndabenhle Zulu, the institution’s former acting procurement head, has filed a founding affidavit in the Constitutional Court seeking relief after the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban dismissed his application against attorney Joanne Philip and the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

Former Unizulu official challenges high court ruling

He is accusing the university’s lawyer of unprofessional conduct for allegedly lying under oath in that she had allegedly deposed an affidavit in which she had allegedly made untrue statements.

Zulu also accuses Philip of unethical conduct for deposing an affidavit on behalf of her client which wasn’t signed by the client.

His original application, launched in 2024, was dismissed and he was ordered to pay Philip’s costs on a party-and-party scale, including the costs of adjournments and counsel.

In his Constitutional Court papers, filed on 26 August, Zulu contends the judgment, delivered by Judge Ramasamy Chetty on 25 February last year, effectively shut down his bid to have the allegations against Philip considered on their merits.

The court found Zulu’s application was premature because he had not exhausted the LPC’s internal processes.

Zulu disputes interpretation of Legal Practice Act

But Zulu disputes this, arguing Section 44 of the Legal Practice Act preserves the high court’s power to deal with complaints concerning the conduct of legal practitioners.

He points specifically to Section 44(2), which he says does not prevent a complainant from approaching the high court directly for appropriate relief concerning a complaint or charge against a legal practitioner.

“The judge incorrectly applied Directive 24 of the Practice Manual in holding that my application should have been lodged at the [KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg].

“The judge incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Legal Practice Act when he held the processes of the LPC should have been exhausted before approaching the high court,” Zulu said in his affidavit.

He lodged the complaint against Philip on 23 September 2023 and LPC referred it to Philip for a response before it was considered by its investigating committee.

LPC process comes under scrutiny

According to court papers, the committee ultimately dismissed the complaint and informed Zulu on 22 April 2024 he could appeal the decision within 30 days.

Zulu, however, contends the LPC’s handling of the complaint was itself procedurally flawed.

He said he had already approached the high court after becoming dissatisfied with the council’s handling of his complaint and the LPC was served with papers on 11 March 2024.

According to Zulu, the council did not initially file a notice of intention to oppose and that an LPC representative appeared at the hearing without him having been notified beforehand that she was representing the council.

Zulu also objects to a document he said was produced in court without having first been served on him.

He identified the document as a 5 April 2024 report by LPC’s investigating committee which purportedly cleared Philip of the allegations.

Zulu said the report was introduced after he had launched his high court bid and was subsequently relied on to support the claim his case was premature.

Attorney says courts have already dismissed allegations

Philip said she respected the judgments of all the courts that have considered this matter and found it to be without merit and dismissed Zulu’s allegations with costs.

“We trust the Constitutional Court will come to the same conclusion,” she said.

Zulu’s application is not to get the apex court to determine the underlying misconduct claims against Philip immediately.

Instead, he seeks an opportunity for the allegations to be considered after what he describes as procedural and constitutional obstacles are removed.