‘Not Fit and Proper’: KZN Woman Denied Attorney Admission After Lying in High Court Application

The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg has dismissed an application by an aspiring candidate attorney to be admitted and enrolled as a legal practitioner, citing serious concerns about honesty, disclosure, and integrity.

The court found that Bongekile Adonica Gasa failed to meet the fundamental requirement of being a “fit and proper” person to enter the legal profession.

The Application

Gasa approached the court in 2023 seeking admission as an attorney in terms of the Legal Practice Act.

She also sought condonation for failing to comply with the Legal Practice Council (LPC) rules, particularly those prohibiting candidate legal practitioners from holding other positions during their training.

The Company

At the centre of the case was Gasa’s role as the sole director and shareholder of a company, Garris & Projects (Pty) Ltd , which operated as a small cleaning services business.

Although Gasa disclosed her directorship in her founding affidavit, she argued that her involvement was minimal and did not interfere with her legal training. She maintained that the company generated modest income and that she did not receive any salary or personal financial benefit.

The Inconsistencies

The court found that her involvement was significantly greater than she had portrayed.

• Bank statements showed numerous payments labelled “director’s wage” made to her during her training period, contradicting her claim of no remuneration.

• Further discrepancies emerged regarding the extent of her role in managing the business, the number of employees, and the nature of payments flowing through her personal accounts.

Gasa failed to adequately explain these payments and, in some instances, did not address them at all.

Employer’s Withdrawal

Gasa’s employer, Norton Rose Fulbright , initially supported her admission. However, that support was later withdrawn after internal concerns arose.

Senior colleagues, including her supervising attorney and mentor, filed supplementary affidavits raising doubts about her disclosures. An internal investigation found sufficient grounds for disciplinary action, although proceedings were ultimately not pursued.

Her employment was later terminated after her training contract was deemed invalid.

The Court’s Finding

The court placed strong emphasis on the duty of full and frank disclosure in admission applications, which are brought on an ex parte basismeaning the court relies heavily on the applicant’s honesty.

The court held that Gasa’s affidavits contained inaccuracies, contradictions, and omissions that undermined her integrity.

The court rejected her explanation that the errors were due to legal drafting, stressing that an applicant bears ultimate responsibility for the contents of their sworn statements.

‘Fit and Proper’ Standard

While acknowledging her academic achievements and positive performance during her training, the court held that these factors could not outweigh the concerns about her integrity.

The court found that her conduct demonstrated:

• A lack of full candour

• Carelessness with the truth

• An insufficient appreciation of ethical obligations

The Bottom Line

She had the grades. She had the training. She had the supportuntil she didn’t.

But the court found she lied about her company, her payments, and her role.

“Fit and proper” means honest. Gasa was not. Her application was dismissed.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com