THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Not reportable
Case no: 658/2020

In the matter between:

MAMOLATELO ALFRED SELOTA
APPELLANT

and

THE SOUTH AFRICAN LEGAL PRACTICE COUNCIL                       RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:  Selota v SALPC (Case no 658/2020) [2021] ZASCA 169
(3 December 2021)
Coram:
SALDULKER ADP and MATHOPO, VAN DER MERWE and
MOKGOHLOA JJA and WEINER AJA
Heard:
19 November 2021
Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email. It has been published on the
Supreme Court of Appeal website and released to SAFLII. The date
and
time
for hand-down
is
deemed
to
be
09h45
on
3 December 2021.
Summary:
Appeal – appellant sought a declarator that he was entitled to Fidelity
Fund certificate for 2019 – decision would have no practical effect or result within the
meaning of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – matter struck from roll.

ORDER

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Van Olst AJ sitting as
court of first instance):
The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal is dismissed
with costs.
The main matter is struck from the roll with costs.

JUDGMENT

Van der Merwe JA (Saldulker ADP and Mathopo and Mokgohloa JJA and Weiner
AJA concurring)
[1] After hearing the parties on 19 November 2021, we made the order set out
above and indicated that reasons for the order would follow. These are the reasons.

[2] The appellant, Mr Mamolatelo Alfred Selota, was admitted as an attorney on
1 August 2008. He subsequently practised for his own account under the name
MA Selota Attorneys. During June 2018, however, the respondent, the South African
Legal Practice Council established under s 4 of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (the
LPA), launched an application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria for
an order removing the appellant from the roll of attorneys and for ancillary relief (the
main application). The application was based on a variety of grounds. Apart from
complaining that the appellant had practised as an attorney without a Fidelity Fund
certificate in contravention of s 84(1) and (2) of the LPA, the respondent inter alia
alleged that an expert’s inspection of the appellant’s books had revealed substantial
and persistent trust fund deficits and debit balances on clients’ trust accounts. It also
averred that the appellant had touted for work and overreached his clients. The main
application was eventually set down for hearing on 21 November 2019.

[3] Shortly before that date, however, the appellant issued the application that is
directly relevant to this judgment. The application was brought on an urgent basis, to
be heard together with the main application. The appellant essentially prayed for an
order declaring that he was entitled to a Fidelity Fund certificate for the year 2019.
This application was eventually heard on 17 February 2020 by Van Olst AJ, who on
9 March 2020 dismissed it with costs on the attorney and client scale, but subsequently
granted leave to the appellant to appeal to this Court. The appeal was set down for
hearing on 19 November 2021. However, the appellant failed to timeously file heads
of argument in this Court. Consequently, the appeal lapsed in terms of rule 10(2A) of
the rules of this Court. As a result, the appellant filed an application for condonation of
the late filing of his heads of argument and for reinstatement of the appeal.
The respondent opposed this application.

[4] In the meantime, on 7 February 2020, Rabie J and Avvakoumides AJ ordered
the suspension of the appellant from practising as an attorney pending the finalisation
of the main application (the suspension order). It can be accepted that it was mainly
based on the fact that the appellant had practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate.
That court refused leave to appeal against the suspension order, as did this Court.
Several further attempts by the appellant to overturn the suspension order came to
naught. The President of this Court refused an application under s 17(2)(f) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 for the reconsideration of the refusal of leave to appeal
on petition. The Constitutional Court turned down an application for leave to appeal as
well as a subsequent application for leave to adduce further evidence and for
reconsideration of its decision to refuse leave to appeal. The last of these orders was
dated 31 March 2021. Counsel for both parties informed us from the Bar that the main
application had been allocated to a judge for case management and expedition of the
determination thereof and that it was ready to be heard.

[5] It is common cause that the respondent never issued a Fidelity Fund certificate
to the appellant for 2019, on the ground that it was not satisfied that the appellant had
complied with the provisions of Chapter 7 of the LPA in respect of the handling of trust
monies. In terms of s 85(6)(a) of the LPA it had to be so satisfied before it could issue
the certificate. Section 85(7) provides that a Fidelity Fund certificate is valid until

31 December of the year in respect of which it is issued. The relief sought on appeal
in this matter was that the order of Van Olst AJ be set aside and replaced with an order
declaring that the appellant was entitled to a Fidelity Fund certificate for 2019 in terms
of s 85 of the LPA, as from 15 February 2019.

[6] Section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act provides as follows:
‘When at the hearing of an appeal the issues are of such a nature that the decision sought will
have no practical effect or result, the appeal may be dismissed on this grounds alone.’
The purpose of the provision is to reduce the heavy workload of appeal courts and to
ensure that matters that truly deserve the attention of appeal courts are not delayed by
burdening these courts with matters that fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a)(i).
See Madibeng Local Municipality v DDP Valuers and Another [2020] ZASCA 70
para 22.

[7] Thus, the question was what practical effect or result the decision sought on
appeal would have. The sole contention of the appellant was that it could have an effect
on the suspension order. We found the submission untenable. In the circumstances
that I have sketched, it is open to serious doubt whether an application to set aside the
suspension order should be entertained at all. But more importantly, the declarator
sought on appeal could have no effect on the suspension order. The respondent rightly
pointed out that the decision sought would not change the fact that the appellant had
practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate. Thus, the main pillar on which the
suspension order had been founded would remain in place notwithstanding success
for the appellant on appeal.

[8] For these reasons, the relief sought on appeal could have had no practical
effect or result and the reinstatement of the appeal would have been senseless.
Thus the application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal had to be
dismissed and the main matter struck from the roll. Costs had to follow these results.

_______________________
C H G VAN DER MERWE
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances:

For appellant:

C A da Silva SC (with him B Mathlape)
Instructed by:

Rammutla-at-Law Inc., Pretoria

Maree & Partners Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For respondent:

L P J Groome (Attorney with right of appearance)
Instructed by:

Rooth & Wessels, Pretoria

Pieter Skein Attorneys, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY - JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
Selota v SALPC (Case no 658/2020) [2021] ZASCA 169
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
3 December 2021
Status:
Immediate
Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) provided reasons for an order made on
19 November 2021 dismissing an application for condonation and reinstatement of an appeal with
costs and striking the main matter from the roll with costs.
The appeal was about the appellant, Mr Mamolatelo Alfred Selota, an admitted attorney. During June
2018, the respondent, the South African Legal Practice Council established under s 4 of the Legal
Practice Act 28 of 2014 (the LPA), launched an application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court,
Pretoria for an order removing the appellant from the roll of attorneys and for ancillary relief (the main
application). One of the grounds of application was that the appellant had practised as an attorney
without a Fidelity Fund certificate in contravention of s 84(1) and (2) of the LPA.
The application was brought on an urgent basis, to be heard together with the main application. The
appellant essentially prayed for an order declaring that he was entitled to a Fidelity Fund certificate for
the year 2019. The application was dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale, by
Van Olst AJ, and the appellant was granted leave to appeal to this Court. The appellant failed to
timeously file heads of argument in this Court and the appeal lapsed. In the meantime, Rabie J and
Avvakoumides AJ issued an order suspending the appellant from practising as an attorney pending
the finalisation of the main application (the suspension order) and refused leave to appeal against the
suspension order, as did this Court. The Constitutional Court turned down an application for leave to
appeal.
The relief sought on appeal was that the order of Van Olst AJ be set aside and replaced with an order
declaring that the appellant was entitled to a Fidelity Fund certificate for 2019 in terms of s 85 of the
LPA. The question was whether the decision sought on appeal would have any practical result or
effect within the meaning of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The sole contention of
the appellant was that it could have an effect on the suspension order. The SCA found the submission
untenable and held that the respondent rightly pointed out that the decision sought would not change
the fact that the appellant had practised without a Fidelity Fund certificate. Thus, the main pillar on
which the suspension order had been founded would remain in place notwithstanding success for the
appellant on appeal. As a result, the SCA dismissed the application for condonation and
reinstatement appeal with costs and struck the main matter from the roll with costs.