High court suspends Onderberg attorney: Zietta scrambles to continue practising

Two days after Mpumalanga High Court judge Brian Mashile made a final order to suspend the disgraced Malalane attorney, Zietta Janse van Rensburg, she brought an urgent application to appeal the finding and asked the court to reinstate her status to allow her to continue practising.

The latest development is part of the Legal Practice Council’s (LPC) ongoing battle to have Janse van Rensburg suspended. Pending the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against her, the LPC launched an urgent application to have her suspended as an attorney on August 24, 2023. The matter was eventually heard on February 2, and Mashile handed down judgment on February 22. Janse van Rensburg was suspended, and judges Mashile and JL Bhengu expressed their shock in response to what the LPC’s investigation had unearthed.

Janse van Rensburg filed a notice to appeal on March 13, and followed up with her answering affidavit on March 20. This had put a hold on her court-ordered suspension, meaning that she could continue practising law pending the appeal proceedings.

The LPC, however, launched a second urgent application on March 22 to make the court’s suspension judgment final until Janse van Rensburg’s appeal hearing.

During these proceedings, the LPC argued that the public would suffer irreparable harm if Janse van Rensburg was allowed to continue practising. Thembeka Ratshibvumo, on behalf of the LPC, argued that the suspension order should be made final to protect the unsuspecting public from further damage.

Janse van Rensburg did not attend the virtual hearing. On April 3, judgment was handed down electronically to all parties, and Mashile granted the LPC’s application.

ALSO READ: Virtual hearing for Onderberg attorney Zietta van Rensburg

In his judgment, Mashile’s noted in his analyses that the LPC was established as a body that regulates the legal profession. They would not only aid the smooth running of the profession, but also protect members of the public who entrust huge financial matters with members of the LPC daily.

He further noted that the court had already found prima facie substance in the complaints against Janse van Rensburg when the original order was granted in February.

“A refusal of this application will mean that the respondents (Janse van Rensburg and her law firm) will carry on practising. The implication is, of course, that they will accept funds and deal with financial matters of the members of the public. It will be remiss in the extreme were this court to countenance this to happen,” the judgment stated.

According to Mashile, the LPC could not afford it to happen, because at the centre of the relationship with its members and the public is trust. “A betrayal of trust of this magnitude has to be treated with the utmost caution, lest there is a public outcry that the LPC has permitted a practitioner to continue to practise, her indiscretions notwithstanding.” Mashile stated that the LPC could not afford to risk its reputation.

The judge ordered that the suspension be granted and effected immediately.

On Friday April 5, Janse van Rensburg filed an urgent application in terms of Rule 6(12), asking the court to reconsider its order granted last Tuesday. Van Rensburg’s application relies on subrule 6(12)c which states: “A person against whom an order was granted in such person’s absence in an urgent application may by notice set down the matter for reconsideration of the order.”

Janse van Rensburg addresses her absence in her founding affidavit. She held that, according to her records, both the urgent application and the application for leave to appeal would be adjudicated on March 14.

ALSO READ: The Onderberg’s Zietta van Rensburg implicated in ‘serious misconduct’

According to her, Ratshibvumo had requested in an email sent on March 15 that “the urgent applicant and the application of the application for leave to appeal be heard simultaneously.” Two dates, either March 25 or 27, were sent to Janse van Rensburg, according to her statement. “I was convinced that the urgent application would be heard on either 25 or 27 March 2024.”

Her affidavit then states that an alternative date of April 11 was proposed. She attached all correspondence between herself, the court registrar, the LPC and secretaries of the judges. Janse van Rensburg accuses the LPC of material non-disclosure in that they did not reference a supposed agreement between the parties in terms of which both matters would proceed on 11 April. However, email correspondence from Ratshibvumo that had been placed on record, denies that such an agreement had been reached.

In support of her application, Janse van Rensburg contends that the continued closure of her practice will be to the detriment of her employees who won’t be able to earn a salary, and “the fact that no services may be rendered transmits a grossly adverse message to the clients and the general public and causes irreparable harm to my name.”

The email communication referred to by Janse van Rensburg, which was attached to the affidavit, was examined, and the following timeline was compiled to clarify:

Parties will be referred to as:

Adv Ratshibvumo on behalf of LPC                              – LPC

Zietta Janse van Rensburg                                             – JVR

Secretary to Judge Mashile, Mathapelo Ramasimong      – Ramasimong

Thabang Chiloane, also a judge’s secretary                    – Chiloane

• February 26: Chiloane acknowledges JVR’s application for leave to appeal.
• March 11: LPC files its notice of intention to oppose JVR’s application and states that their heads of argument will be served and filed soon.
• March 12: LPC files its heads of argument.
• March 14: Chiloane emails LPC and JVR: notifies them that the application for leave to appeal will be a virtual hearing and suggest 25, 26 and 27 March 2024.
• March 15: LPC emails JVR and court secretaries, stating: “We suggest that if practically possible, the application in terms of Section 18 be heard together with application for leave to appeal. If not possible, we are available 25 and 27 March 2024.
• March 18: Ramasimong sends mail to JVR, LPC with subject line “LPC Court roll: 22 March 2024” and states: “The matter has been allocated to Hon Justice Mashile”, and then asks for all papers to be submitted by March 19 at 12:00.
• March 20: LPC email to JVR and court: “Please be advised that we approached the applicant to ensure a suitable date is identified for both parties, however, we were not favoured with a response.”
• March 21 (Human Rights Day): JVR to LPC and court secretaries: sends an email and says she was in Pretoria consulting with her counsel. “I will enquire their availability and confirm soonest.”
• March 21: LPC email to JVR and court secretaries with subject line “LPC Court Roll – 22 March 2024”. The email states: “Kindly find attached the applicants (LPC) supplementary heads of argument for the attention of Judge Mashile and Coetzee in respect of the matter scheduled for hearing on 22 March at 09:00.”
• March 21: JVR sends WhatsApp to LPC: “Apologies for bothering on a public holiday. I need to confirm a brief for the advocate if we are proceeding tomorrow or not.”
• March 22 at 08:41: JVR sends email to LPC and court with subject line “LPC Court Roll – 22 March 2024”. Email states: “I am unsure why heads or arguments were filed when it was agreed to hear the rule 18 (1) and notice of appeal on a future date (yesterday).”
• March 22 at 09:06: LPC sends mail to JVR and court secretaries: “Please be advised that I am not aware of such agreement.”
• March 22 at 09:23: JVR sends email to court secretaries and LPC with a screenshot of the WA message sent on 21 March.
• March 25: JVR sends email to LPC and court secretaries with the subject line “Application for leave to appeal” informing that counsel is drafting heads of arguments for her and asks for suitable dates.
• March 29: Chiloane sends mail to JVR, LPC and court secretaries, indicating that the dates of 9, 10 and 11 April are available for the application for leave to appeal.
• April 3: LPC mails JVR and court secretaries, confirming 11 April as a suitable date for the virtual hearing.
• April 3: JVR confirms availability for 11 April.
• April 3: Chiloane sends email to JVR, LPC and court secretaries with judgment from Judge Mashile on urgent LPC application.

* This article has been amended since it was first published.