Controversial Limpopo lawyer Kevin Maluleke has been accused of performing legal duties despite being removed from the roll of practising advocates.
Sources said Maluleke still claims to be an advocate, continues to practice and allegedly extorts money from clients.
Sources say Maluleke was struck off the roll after he was described as dishonest and not fit to practice after he allegedly concealed information regarding previous charges and convictions, including theft and intimidation, which were pertinent to his eligibility as an advocate.
The application to have Maluleke struck off the roll was brought by the Limpopo Society of Advocates and was supported by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (LSNP).
It was authorised by the High Court in Limpopo last year.
The sources say Maluleke has been warned about his illegal practices but he has refused to listen.
“Even the judges have tried to talk to him but he has been fighting and bullying them,” said the sources.
This was confirmed by the Legal Practice Council (LPC) spokesperson, Kabelo Letebele, who said the branch in Limpopo registered a criminal case with the SAPS against Maluleke for continuing to appear at the Thohoyandou High Court on May 28.
Letebele said section 33(4) of the Legal Practice Act (LPA) prohibits a legal practitioner who has been struck from the roll to hold themselves as a legal practitioner. He said section 93(2) of the Act makes it a criminal offence.
This is not the first time Maluleke has been accused of breaching the High Court’s ruling. Earlier this year, law firm Pratt Luyt and De Lange accused Maluleke of illegally continuing with his legal work.
In a letter written to his representatives, Ntsako Phyllis Mbhiza Attorneys, on March 6, 2024, Pratt Luyt & De Lange said Maluleke attempted to represent himself as a legal practitioner in Thohoyandou High Court.
This was in the court case involving Khanyi Transport Service, Projects CC and Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd.
The law firm said Maluleke was struck off the roll and was no longer a legal practitioner. Pratt Luyt & De Lange also added that this was a criminal offence.
Maluleke, who last week exposed Limpopo Division of the High Court Judge President George Phatudi’s attempts to influence him to destroy Violet Semenya’s aspirations of becoming a Deputy Judge President, told the “Sunday Independent” that he was still practising as there was a pending application for leave to appeal before the Constitutional Court.
Ntsako Phyllis Mbhiza said it was worth noting that the Constitutional Court did not pronounce itself in respect of the merits of the matter as it was ordered that Maluleke’s application for leave to appeal does not engage its jurisdiction, resulting in the filing of an application in terms of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 to the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
“Maluleke’s application for leave to appeal as things presently stand has been filed with the SCA in terms of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 consequential to aforementioned Constitutional Court’s decision and accordingly he is in practice and will be, for the remaining years of his life,” read the letter.
Maluleke added that he understood the frustration and bitterness of Pratt Luyt & De Lange Attorneys’ Advocate Johan Moolman, who was the author of the letter, because he, together with Limpopo Division of the High Court Judge President George Phatudi, were amongst the criminal suspects in the impending corruption case that he opened against them around March last year.
Maluleke provided a copy of the ruling in the matter between Khanyi Transport Services and Projects CC against Man Financial Services, and a copy of the Constitutional Court’s order that granted him a leave to appeal the Limpopo High Court’s decision. The case was remitted back to the high court for determination “de nevo” before a differently constituted full bench.
“I am in practice, my appeal has been duly filed and is currently pending before the Constitutional Court. It cannot be gainsaid that an appeal suspends the operation and execution of a court order unless the LPC brings an application in terms of section 18 (3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which has not been done.
“Therefore the said letter dated 6 March 2024, from Pratt Luyt & De Lange Attorneys is not a court order or authority or the law and thus, written whimsically at the behest of Moolman, which conduct is quite regrettable or unfortunate,’’ said Maluleke.
Moolman, who is representing the LPC in the case against Maluleke, said he would relay the questions to his client and obtain instructions on the answers.
Questions were also sent to Phatudi’s secretary, Davids Bernard, who did not comment.
However, Letebele insisted that Maluleke’s appeal does not remove the suspension and he is still not allowed to practice.
His appeal was dismissed and he approached the SCA which also dismissed it and it went to the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the application. All dismissed with costs,“ said Letebele.
He said Malululeke subsequently lodged a condonation to petition SCA which dismissed and lodged the petition to the Constitutional Court, and it was also dismissed.
“He applied for condonation now. But condonation does not suspend the striking order,” Letebele said.
The sources close to the situation added that an application for leave to appeal does not set aside the main order.
“The appeal is not yet granted, it is still an application, meaning the order to strike him still stands. He is not allowed to practice until the order to strike him off is dismissed.”
Maluleke applied for condonation after he failed to file an answering affidavit to the founding affidavit of the Polokwane Society of Advocates. The Limpopo High Court said no answering affidavit has been filed to date.
However, the Constitutional Court said the Limpopo High Court heard the matter without Maluleke’s version and decided only on the version of the Polokwane Society of Advocates, which was in breach of the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
It added that Maluleke was afforded an opportunity to be heard as his answering affidavit had not been filed at all in the striking-off application.
manyane.manyane@inl.co.za