KZN High Court sets aside R464,983.63 fraud conviction over unauthorised legal representation

What the High Court decided

The judgment, delivered by Judge Mathenjwa with Acting Judge Khuzwayo concurring, ordered that the regional court proceedings, conviction and sentence be set aside. The matter was remitted to the regional court for a trial de novo before a different presiding officer, but only if the Director of Public Prosecutions elects to reinstate the charge.

The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for its attention.

The allegation and the sums involved

Alijan had faced a fraud charge connected to invoices allegedly submitted to Bid Freight Port Operations in Durban. The state alleged that invoices issued by Feroz Trucking (Pty) Ltd were presented as genuine and that Bid Freight paid R464,983.63 for the services reflected in those invoices.

How the trial unfolded a timeline of key dates

• 1 July 2024: Alijan’s trial began. He was represented at that stage by a candidate legal practitioner identified in the judgment as Mr Melani.
• 15 August 2024: Proceedings resumed and Alijan pleaded guilty to the charge; he was convicted.
• 14 November 2024: Alijan was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, with two years suspended for five years. Mr Melani was absent from the sentencing hearing; Alijan was represented at that hearing by Mr Amod.
• January 2025: Alijan applied for leave to appeal against his sentence only; the application was refused the next day.
• April–July 2026: Questions about Mr Melani’s authority to appear were raised with the LPC; the LPC later confirmed it had no record of a registered practical vocational training contract for Mr Melani during the period in which he represented Alijan.

Why the court found the representation unlawful

The court reviewed communications between the Durban Magistrates’ Court and the LPC. The LPC told the court it had records showing Mr Melani had previously been registered for practical vocational training but that he was required to repeat part of the programme. The LPC said it received an application to re‑register his training contract on 9 April 2026, which was due for consideration in May 2026. In a later response dated 30 July 2026, the LPC confirmed its records did not show a registered practical vocational training contract for Mr Melani during the period he represented Alijan in court.

Under the Legal Practice Act, the right of a candidate legal practitioner to appear in court depends on compliance with statutory requirements governing training and supervision. The High Court concluded the available records did not establish that Mr Melani was authorised to represent an accused in the relevant proceedings, and therefore Alijan had been defended by someone who was not qualified to provide the legal representation offered.

Additional concerns the court noted

The judges identified several procedural issues that informed their view the trial may have been prejudicial to Alijan. The judgment records that Mr Melani attempted to enter a plea before the charge had been formally put to the accused; the magistrate had to remind him that the charge first needed to be presented. The court regarded this as an indicator that Alijan may not have received proper and effective legal assistance during a critical stage.

The judgment also raised questions about Mr Melani’s principal, Mr Amod, observing that at one stage Mr Amod had appeared in court on Mr Melani’s behalf and that the principal’s conduct appeared to condone the irregular representation.

Legal consequences and next steps

The High Court’s order setting aside the conviction and sentence does not amount to an acquittal on the fraud allegation. Instead, the case has been returned to the regional court for a fresh trialsubject to the prosecution’s decision whether to reinstate the charge. The judgment will be sent to the LPC as directed by the High Court.

The court acknowledged that Alijan had been convicted of a serious offence and had already served part of his sentence, but it concluded that the constitutional right to a fair trial required the conviction and sentence to be set aside in light of the improper legal representation.

Broader context: why authorised representation matters

Legal systems typically require that practitioners who represent accused persons meet specific training and registration requirements. Those safeguards exist to protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by ensuring accused people receive competent, supervised legal assistance at critical stages of criminal proceedings. When a court finds those requirements were not met, it may set aside convictions and sentences if the irregularity is likely to have caused prejudice to the accused.

What readers should watch for

The immediate practical developments to follow are whether the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to reinstate the fraud charge and whether the LPC takes any action after receiving the High Court judgment. If the charge is reinstated, a new trial must be held before a different presiding officer.

For now, the High Court’s ruling restores the procedural safeguard that a person accused of a crime must be represented by someone authorised to appear, and it underscores that failures in that system can have decisive consequences for the outcome of criminal proceedings.