Zietta’s legal drama continues

The Legal Practice Council (LPC) has confirmed that the case to have suspended Malalane attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg struck off the roll did not proceed on Monday, April 14.

The LPC stated the matter was set down for April 14 on an unopposed roll due to Janse van Rensburg’s failure to file opposing papers. She filed a notice to oppose but did not file an affidavit opposing the strike-off application.

According to the LPC, “The Mpumalanga High Court directive states that if a party fails to file an opposing affidavit, a matter is unopposed and, as a result, the matter will be set down on an unopposed roll. We proceeded to set down the matter and the respondent recently filed her opposing papers and a Rule 35(12) notice in the main application (strike-off) application.”

Lowvelder previously reported on the urgent application Janse van Rensburg filed on March 11. Her representative, Adv Hennie van Rensburg, asked Acting Judge Kgama Shai to have excerpts from the LPC’s founding affidavit in the April matter struck out.

The parts they wanted removed from the record are allegations of theft and fraud – none of which she was found guilty of’, he said, labelling these paragraphs as ‘scandalous, vexatious and irrelevant’.

Shai found that the application was not urgent and that these arguments should be reserved for April 14, striking Janse van Rensburg’s urgent application from the roll.

Another issue that the parties were at odds about was whether the application to have Janse van Rensburg struck from the roll of legal practitioners had been opposed or not.

The LPC then enrolled the matter as unopposed as no answering affidavit was filed following Janse van Rensburg giving notice of her intention to defend the matter.
Adv Van Rensburg maintained that ‘you cannot serve an answering affidavit if there is scandalous, vexatious and irrelevant information in the founding affidavit’, confirming that his client still views the matter as an opposed one.

Matter referred for case management

National spokesperson for the LPC Kabelo Letebele says the LPC has now referred the matter for case management to avoid further delays. “The matter was removed from the unopposed roll of April 14 and a request to undergo case management has been made to the respondent’s representatives, to which we have not received co-operation. The representative of the LPC has since addressed correspondence to the court to intervene. There is no date set down for the strike-off application yet.”

Attorney withdraws

Janse van Rensburg received a further blow when Adv van Rensburg formally withdrew as her legal representative.

This came after Janse van Rensburg requested a postponement of the criminal case in Malalane in which she faces charges of fraud, forgery and uttering. The case was set down for trial on April 24 and 25.

An email sent to Lowvelder by Janse van Rensburg on Tuesday divulged all communication between her, the state prosecutor and Adv van Rensburg.

Janse van Rensburg wrote to state prosecutor Tobie Steyn and said: “As noted, there are many public and school holidays in that period. It is my father’s birthday April 23. I kindly request that if there is any issue that might hinder the proceedings that I am advised in order to spend the first birthday with my father since my studies (2003) and the first ever birthday where my children can spend it with their grandfather. I will preliminarily book the flights for our return on April 23, but it would be highly appreciated if we can extend it with the benefit of the extra days. My last visits to Port Elizabeth were for my mother’s passing July 2021 and my father’s second heart bypass February 2024.”

After having obtained Magistrate Jacob Mamabolo’s approval, the case was postponed by agreement between the parties to May 12 at Malalane Periodical Court.

On Friday, April 11, Adv van Rensburg informed the parties involved and the presiding officer that he had withdrawn from the case, and was subsequently excused from having to appear on behalf of his former client.

He stated in an email to both parties: “Due to non-compliance and receiving no instructions from Mrs J van Rensburg. I hereby withdraw from the case as legal representative. I am not in a position to continue due to lack of instructions, co-operation and a breach of trust envisages failing that the matter should continue on the dates agreed upon, being April 24 and 25. Unless I receive direct instructions within the next 48 hours, I withdraw indefinitely.”

This morning, Adv Van Rensburg confirmed to Lowvelder that he had withdrawn from the case.