- An attorney contested the disciplinary process that resulted in the Legal Practice Council applying to have her removed from the roll.
- She asked the court to pause the proceedings until her complaint to the Legal Services Ombud had been finalised.
- The High Court rejected her preliminary objection and ordered her to cover the LPC’s legal costs.
The High Court in Polokwane has dismissed an attorney’s attempt to stop the Legal Practice Council (LPC) from pursuing an application to remove her from the roll of legal practitioners.
Judge JT Ngobeni, with Acting Judge TC Maphelela concurring, ruled that the High Court has independent disciplinary powers and is not bound by recommendations made by the LPC’s disciplinary committee or complaints pending before the Legal Services Ombud.
The application concerns Ninette Georgette Janse van Rensburg (Landsberg), who was admitted as an attorney in April 2003 and practises in Musina under the name Janse van Rensburg-Landsberg Attorneys. The LPC alleges that she engaged in unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy conduct and is no longer a fit and proper person to practise.
Attorney challenges disciplinary process
Before the court could consider the removal application, Janse van Rensburg raised a preliminary objection, challenging the disciplinary proceedings that preceded it.
She argued that the LPC had relied on an incomplete record of the disciplinary committee’s findings and recommendation. She also complained that her mitigating circumstances had not been presented to the committee before it finalised the disciplinary enquiry in May 2025.
She further alleged that the committee had failed to consider her exculpatory evidence, convicted her of misconduct that was not included in the charges and allowed the complainant, identified as Grobler, to cross-examine her during the hearing.
The LPC acknowledged that three pages were missing from the record initially attached to its application but said they were supplied on the same day the omission was brought to its attention. It also admitted that her written mitigating submissions had not been placed before the committee because of an administrative oversight.
However, the LPC maintained that the committee had been aware of her circumstances through the evidence presented during the enquiry.
Janse van Rensburg had also lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Ombud on 30 June 2026. She intended to institute review proceedings under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and argued that the removal application should be dismissed or suspended pending the Ombud’s decision.
High Court has independent disciplinary powers
Judge Ngobeni found that the LPC’s application was not dependent on a recommendation from its disciplinary committee.
Section 44 of the Legal Practice Act preserves the High Court’s power to adjudicate matters involving the conduct of legal practitioners and make appropriate orders. The judge explained that applications for the suspension or removal of legal practitioners are disciplinary proceedings of a special nature and are not ordinary civil proceedings.
The court must independently examine the alleged misconduct and determine whether the practitioner remains fit and proper to practise. The judge relied on previous judgments, including Legal Practice Council v Motlhabani, which confirmed that the LPC refers alleged misconduct to the court for an independent decision.
Even if the disciplinary committee’s process had been flawed, this would not deprive the High Court of its authority to consider the removal application.
Ombud complaint cannot stop proceedings
The court also rejected the argument that the pending complaint to the Legal Services Ombud should prevent the removal application from proceeding.
Judge Ngobeni acknowledged that the Ombud has a public-interest role, including ensuring fair and effective investigations into complaints of alleged misconduct against legal practitioners. However, the Ombud’s functions do not replace or override the High Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.
The judge held that referring a complaint to the Ombud does not prevent the court from hearing proceedings already instituted against a legal practitioner. The ultimate responsibility for determining whether an attorney is fit and proper to practise rests with the court.
The court further rejected the argument that the LPC’s decision to refer the matter for judicial determination constituted administrative action under PAJA. Relying on previous judgments, the judge found that the LPC exercises a statutory function when bringing alleged misconduct before the High Court. It does not institute an ordinary civil action but asks the court to exercise its disciplinary powers.
Judge Ngobeni dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the issues raised had already been addressed in previous judgments. The judge also considered that the objection had been raised to delay the proceedings.
The court ordered Janse van Rensburg and her law firm to pay the LPC’s costs jointly and severally on an attorney-and-client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
