Gauteng High Court refuses bid by man seeking admission to the Bar

The Gauteng High Court has refused leave to appeal in the latest legal challenge by Hitjevi Tjiroze to be admitted as an advocate. The court dismissed his application for permission to appeal a judgment delivered in April that rejected his bid to rescind an earlier ruling refusing him admission.

Court finds submissions repetitive and without merit

Judges said Tjiroze’s new application was “little more than an attempt to repackage an earlier failed attempt to appeal the judgment refusing him admission” and that his arguments “largely repeated issues that had already been addressed.”

The court concluded that Tjiroze had “failed to identify any basis on which another court would overturn the ruling” and dismissed the application with costs. It added that he displayed an “unhelpful preoccupation with peripheral or irrelevant matters.”

Previous proceedings and qualification issues

Tjiroze first sought admission as an advocate in 2020. The Legal Practice Council opposed that application and he later withdrew it before bringing a fresh application in the Johannesburg High Court, where the ruling noted problems with how he filed his papers.

The court said “it is a feature of Tjiroze’s applications that they are not presented in reasonably crisp, polite terms like they should be. Instead, some of the papers of Tjiroze are long, argumentative, impolite and difficult to follow.”

In the earlier matter the Legal Practice Council opposed admission on the basis that Tjiroze lacked the required qualifications and was not fit to be admitted as an advocate. The court found that he had failed to provide the certification required to show his qualifications met South Africa’s admission requirements.

The judgment stated: “It is common cause that Tjiroze has a three year B Juris degree from the University of Namibia. Tjiroze needs to show that Monash South Africa, being a South African university with a law faculty, and on which institution he relies, has certified that the syllabus and standard of instruction is equal to or superior to that of the South African LLB.” His application in that matter was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs.

Previous Constitutional Court ruling

Tjiroze also approached the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court criticised the quality of his papers and found his allegations about a judge’s conflict of interest “lacked substance” and dismissed the application.

The Constitutional Court said the application for leave “is so woeful as to cry out for dismissal,” and found that Tjiroze had been “litigating frivolously and vexatiously at great expense” and was “abusing the court process.”

The Constitutional Court went further and “expressly forbade Tijroze from approaching any other court seeking admittance to the bar.” The court stated: “The applicant cannot approach any other court pursuing the same causes he is pursuing before this court.”

Earlier related litigation

The reporting notes that Tjiroze, a former legal and compliance officer, reported alleged financial improprieties at his former employer, Sanlam. Following his dismissal he brought multiple review applications and appeals involving the Financial Sector Conduct Authority and other parties.

In separate litigation over a typographical error in papers filed by the regulator, a judge noted that Tjiroze had failed to appear at a hearing despite being informed of the date beforehand. He lost that bid after the court found there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion.