JOHANNESBURG SOCIETY

OF ADVOCATES v EDELING
2019 (5) SA 79 (SCA)
Facts
• Edeling was struck of the roll of advocates in 1997.
• He applied to be re-admitted in 2009 and again in 2015.
• He was readmitted in 2015 but the Witwatersrand Society of
Advocates were of the opinion that he should not have been re-
admitted and appealed the decision to re-admit him.
Issue
• The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) should decide whether
the High court was right or wrong to re-admit Edeling
Why was Edeling struck from the roll?
• He and Rudolph found a loophole in the VAT legislation and devised a
scheme to defraud the revenue services. (par 4)
• When they were about to be caught he drafted a contract to conceal
there fraudulent behavior. (par 5)
• The High court (that struck Edeling from the rolle) found that he
simulated a contract to deliberately obtain an undue tax advantage.
• He lied to the Special Tax court and the High court about the
transactions
• He lied about his relationship with Rudolph
Why was Edeling struck from the roll?
• Edeling knew the transactions was a scam/ simulated.
• His evidence in different courts was not truthful.
• In his court documents he attacked senior members of the bar,
insulted them and made unfound allegations against them (NB see
par 7)
• He tried to conceal the truth through false allegations.
• See par 8 for summary of reasons on why he was struck from the roll.
Application for re-admission
• 2009
• Withdraw it
• Society indicates he did not make full and honest disclosure of his practice in
Lesotho
• 2015
• Par 9-10
• This is what Edeling stated in his affidavit before the high court
• In par 11 the court sets out the test that is used to determine
whether somebody that was struck from the role can be re-admitted.
• Take note of the specific factors that the court refers to.
• It is numbered in red by the lecturer
Application for re-admission
• Par 12 – Edeling fails to properly acknowledge that he was dishonest.
He shows no real insight into his wrongdoing and still tries to justify
his behavior.
• Par 13-14 The court indicates that Edeling has not acknowledged any
wrongdoing.
• Par 15 – 16 Edeling’s own phycologist indicates that he has no
concept of his wrongdoing.
• Par 17 – 24 Several unsatisfactorily incidents in Lesotho happened
which indicates that he is not fit and proper.
Application for re-admission
• Par 25-26 – No convincing explanation of the work he did since struck
from the roll.
• Par 27 – 33– He delivers unsatisfactorily work as insolvency practitioner
while struck from the roll. Practiced while struck from the roll.
• Par 31- Use title of senior council in Swaziland courts while struck from
the roll.
• Par 34 High court used wrong test to re-admit Edeling. What is the
correct approach?
• 36-37 Summary of why he cannot be re-admitted and why the Law
society wins the appeal.