Axed Unizulu official takes attorney-misconduct fight to Constitutional Court

A former University of Zululand official has taken his dispute over alleged attorney misconduct to the Constitutional Court, asking the apex court to allow his claims against an attorney and the Legal Practice Council to be considered after a KwaZulu-Natal High Court judgment dismissed his application.

What Zulu is asking the ConCourt to review

Ndabenhle Zulu, the university’s former acting procurement head, filed a founding affidavit in the Constitutional Court on 26 August. His papers seek relief following the Durban high court’s dismissal of his application against attorney Joanne Philip and the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

The basis of the complaint

Zulu accuses Philip of unprofessional conduct for allegedly making untrue statements in an affidavit and of unethical conduct for deposing an affidavit on behalf of her client that he says was not signed by the client. He launched his original application in 2024, which was dismissed and he was ordered to pay Philip’s costs on a party-and-party scale, including costs for adjournments and counsel.

High court ruling and Zulu’s challenge

According to Zulu’s Constitutional Court papers, the Durban judgment delivered by Judge Ramasamy Chetty on 25 February last year effectively shut down his bid to have the allegations against Philip heard on their merits because the court found his application was premature for not exhausting the LPC’s internal processes.

Zulu disputes that interpretation of the Legal Practice Act, pointing specifically to Section 44 and saying Section 44(2) does not prevent a complainant from approaching the high court directly. In his affidavit he said,

“The judge incorrectly applied Directive 24 of the Practice Manual in holding that my application should have been lodged at the [KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg]. The judge incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Legal Practice Act when he held the processes of the LPC should have been exhausted before approaching the high court.”

Disputes over the LPC process

Zulu lodged his complaint against Philip on 23 September 2023. The LPC referred the complaint to Philip for a response before its investigating committee considered it. The committee ultimately dismissed the complaint and informed Zulu on 22 April 2024 that he could appeal within 30 days.

Zulu says he became dissatisfied with the council’s handling of the complaint and approached the high court; the LPC was served with papers on 11 March 2024. He further alleges procedural flaws in the LPC’s handling, saying the council did not initially file a notice of intention to oppose, an LPC representative appeared at the hearing without prior notice that she would represent the council, and a report dated 5 April 2024 by the LPC’s investigating committee was produced in court without having been served on him.

Attorney response

Philip said she respected the judgments of the courts that have considered the matter and that those courts had found Zulu’s allegations to be without merit and had dismissed them with costs. She added,

“We trust the Constitutional Court will come to the same conclusion.”

Relief sought

Zulu is not asking the Constitutional Court to decide the underlying misconduct claims against Philip immediately. Instead, he seeks an opportunity for the allegations to be considered once, in his view, what he describes as procedural and constitutional obstacles are removed.