LSB appeals Sebego case
Mpho Mokwape | Thursday January 26, 2017 15:36
The LSB had found Sebego guilty of professional misconduct and slapped him with a fine of P7,500, after his former clients, Agnes Brook and Michael Brook, filed a complaint with the LSB accusing him of fraud and abuse of office.
Sebego promptly dragged the LSB to the High Court, where last year, the Society lost its case and the DC’s decision was overruled.
High Court’s Judge, Zein Kebonang ruled that the LSB DC did not do a thorough investigation before charging Sebego, adding that it was unfair for him to be charged on a mere complaint.
Now the LSB in its appeal contend Kebonang decided the review application on the first issue and did not pronounce on the rest of the points raised
Yesterday, attorney Steven Kuny said the High Court had erred in holding that there was no thorough investigation done and that Sebego had not been furnished with the particulars of the complaint.
He argued that the matter was investigated thoroughly after the complaint by the Brooks and that Sebego also was given time to reconcile with his clients.
“On receipt of the complaint, the DC wrote to him asking him to reconcile with his clients. No attempts appear to have been made to the effect and this caused the DC to proceed with the disciplinary complaint against him,” he said. Kuny explained that even after Sebego was furnished with a letter informing him that it had found that a prima facie case was established, he had not responded despite being asked to do so within 14 days.
He said Sebego only responded seven months later and that the DC considered the matter on September 9, 2014 based on the affidavits filed by the Brooks.
On the particulars of the complaint, Kuny maintained that Section 50 (2) of the Legal Practitioner’s Act did not require that Sebego to be furnished with particulars of the charge but required that he be provided with ‘particulars of the complaint’.
“Sebego had ample opportunity to put his case before the committee. He had time to argue his case and provide enough evidence for the DC to work with but he failed and instead took his time to respond to the letters addressed to him,” he said.
Appearing for Sebego, lawyer Busang Manewe said the LSB had an obligation to investigate the complaint but failed to do so.
He explained that according to the Act, the DC had to make inquiries in order to establish a proper case against his client instead of charging him on one-sided evidence.
“The court was correct in granting the review on the basis of the failure to investigate and to give my client sufficient particulars,” he said.
Manewe said his client had not even been invited to respond on the affidavit and by the time the DC invited him, it was undertaking the substantive hearing and not the investigation stage.
He submitted that the proceedings before the DC were purely adversarial.
“The DC acted not like a tribunal charged with the task of performing inquisitional duties, but rather like a court of law that solely relied on the evidence adduced by the parties, and in this case only by the complaint,” he argued.
Judgment is set for February 2, 2017.