A candidate attorney has been found to be unfit to be admitted as a legal practitioner by the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Image: File
Bongekile Gasa, a 30-year-old candidate attorney, was recently found unfit for admission as a legal practitioner by the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
The court established that Gasa lied under oath and failed to disclose her financial interests fully.
Gasa had approached the High Court in 2023, seeking admission and enrolment, as well as condonation for not fully complying with the South African Legal Practice Rules.
She also requested the court to declare her practical vocational training (PVT) contract, signed on 20 February 20, 2021, valid.
Gasa entered into a two-year training contract with her principal, Andre Pieter Vos, an attorney and director at the time of Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) in Gauteng, after completing her legal qualifications in 2020. This contract was registered with the Legal Practice Council (LPC).
However, during her period of service as a candidate legal practitioner, Gasa failed to disclose that she was the sole director of a company, Garris & Projects (Pty) Ltd. After completing her training, she was offered a position as a trainee associate at NRF in the intellectual property department. Pending her admission, she then relocated from Gauteng to KwaZulu-Natal.
When NRF and Vos became aware of Gasa’s dual role, they withdrew their support for her admission, and her contract was terminated as her training was considered void.
Gasa claimed she was unaware of the rule prohibiting a candidate legal practitioner from holding another position during training, stating she did not fully read her contract. She further blamed the LPC in her affidavit for failing to advise her that holding a director position required written approval.
The court found that Gasa not only failed to properly disclose her interest in Garris but was also untruthful in her papers regarding the extent of her involvement and the financial benefit derived from the company.
Gasa lied under oath, stating she was not receiving any income from the company, despite her bank statements reflecting payments with the reference ‘director’s wage’. In her defence, she claimed the payments were for overhead expenses and that she was unaware of the reference.
While Gasa described Garris as a small cleaning company with three female employees, generating approximately R15,000 per month, and claimed she was not involved in its operation, the LPC investigating committee found that she was, in fact, more involved.
A significant delay was caused when the court directed Gasa to produce the annual financial statements for Garris. She stated that she only paid the accountant on July 25, 2025, and that the statements were delivered on August 6, 2025.
However, Acting Judge (AJ) Pietersen noted: “The financial statements annexed to the supplementary affidavit record that they were signed off by the applicant on March 31, 2025, already. The applicant was, therefore, not honest in her evidence regarding the availability and compilation of the company’s.”
AJ Pietersen ruled that Gasa was not a fit and proper person for admission as a legal practitioner.
The judge stated: “The applicant has, therefore, failed to make a complete disclosure of her pecuniary interest in Garris, acted in breach of her fiduciary duties as a director of Garris and has been untruthful in her affidavits before this court, in more than one respect.”
AJ Pietersen further noted that the court could not ignore that Gasa signed her practical vocational contract without reading it, stating she “has also been found as untruthful on other material facts”.
nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za