Malalane attorney gets six months suspended jail sentence

In his judgment, Acting Judge Henk Roelofse found that Zietta Janse van Rensburg had committed perjury by falsely stating in a sworn answering affidavit that she had appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal against Judge Mashile’s findings that she could not appeal her suspension, which was in fact proven to be false.

Roelofse’s judgment said: “Court orders must be obeyed, or else the Rule of Law shall be under threat. Contempt of court is a serious offence. The very foundation of society is to rely on courts to vindicate both its individual or collective rights and to enforce its individual or collective obligations arising from our social compact, or else society will destroy itself.”

The judgment follows a lengthy court battle between the Legal Practice Council (LPC) and Janse van Rensburg, which started on February 22, 2024, when she was suspended from practising as an attorney.

ALSO READ: Malalane attorney loses appeal, can’t practise

She applied for leave to appeal a few days later. 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.

On April 11, her application for leave to appeal was denied by Mashile. The LPC opposed Janse van Rensburg’s application and argued that she had not convinced the court that there was a reasonable chance of success that another court would come to a different decision on her suspension.

On May 21, while being suspended, Janse van Rensburg appeared before Mashile in the urgent application of Shofeeds (Pty) Ltd v Johan Moller and Two Others. Ms Van Rensburg represented the respondents in the Shofeeds matter, being Johan Moller, Sonell Joubert and Management Solutions.

The LPC then launched an urgent application against Janse van Rensburg for contempt of court, which was heard this week.

Roelofse states: “It is common cause that the suspension order was granted and that Ms Van Rensburg had knowledge of the order. In addition, Ms Van Rensburg conceded at the hearing of the matter that she has not yet petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the suspension order, nor has she delivered a notice of appeal in the Section 18(3) order.

“Roelofse clarifies contempt of court as follows: ‘the existence of an order; the contemnor must have knowledge of the order; non-compliance with the order; and a wilful or male fide disregard of the order. These elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt if a criminal sanction is sought for the contempt.’”

The LPC argued that Ms Van Rensburg was in wilful contempt of the suspension order when she appeared in court on May 21.

Janse van Rensburg, however, denied to Roelofse that she has acted in wilful or male fide disregard of the order, the reasons being that she was appealing both the orders and that she did not act as attorney for Moller.

The judge dismissed her argument outright in light of the concession made by Janse van Rensburg that no appeal is pending in respect of the orders. In addition, no proof was furnished by her that any appeal was pending, despite reference being made by her to a notice of appeal being attached to her affidavit as an annexure.

The judgment further noted that Janse van Rensburg had also misrepresented to Mashile, the Registrar, the LPC, Shofeeds’ attorney Scheepers and in the affidavits she has filed in her application that an unspecified appeal or appeals were pending against the orders.

ALSO READ: Millions lost in Giyani mining deal

The LPC alleged that Janse van Rensburg informed the court that her “petition is in the Supreme Court and it has not been opposed, that gives [me] a marginal to assist [my] clients”.

She never denied this allegation in her answering and supplementary affidavits. Instead, she stated in her answering affidavit that she annexes a copy of “… the appeal launched as the Supreme Court of Appeal against both the Section 18 order and appeal.”

Roelofse said: “It is clear from Ms Van Rensburg’s concessions and evidence that she knew about the orders and their import; and that she wilfully misrepresented that the orders were being appealed when it was not.”

The judge said these misrepresentations of the alleged appeal or appeals proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Janse van Rensburg knew that she was suspended, therefore could not have practised as an attorney and that she was in wilful and male fide defiance of the orders.

“Depending on what prejudice arose for those to whom these misrepresentations were made because they may have had acted on the misrepresentations, she may have committed fraud by making the misrepresentations as she did.”

The judgment stated that when considering an appropriate sanction, the court has to consider the well-known sentencing triad; the offence, the offender, and the interests of society.

“Despite Ms Van Rensburg’s hollow claims that she did what she thought was right not to obey the orders, I still view her blatant disregard of the orders in a serious light. After all, she is a legal practitioner who should, without any reservation, comply with the law,” the judgment said.

Janse van Rensburg was further slapped with costs and was ordered to pay the LPC’s legal bill on an attorney and client scale.

Click here to read the full judgement.

ALSO READ: R14.4m lost in property transaction handled by Onderberg attorney