NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT 
( REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

CASE NO.: 35529/2009

In the matter between:

V

JUDGMENT

WEBSTER J
1. The plaintiff who is described in the particulars of claim as "...an adult male Attorney on the non-practising roll of Attorneys" has instituted action against the defendant for (i) payment of R667 204.00 being the amount allegedly owing to him by the defendant in respect of services rendered by him to the defendant in his capacity as a "primary advisor" in relation to the development by her of the farm Schoonspruit. The plaintiff avers that these fees amount represents the total of his normal hourly rate, alternatively a fair and reasonable fee for services rendered by him plus disbursements incurred by him in the execution of his duties; (ii) damages in the sum of R500 000 for seven (7) defamatory remarks allegedly made by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff in an affidavit deposed to by the defendant. The sum of R500 000 is a globular amount for and in respect of all seven of the alleged defamatory remarks.

disbursements allegedly paid by the plaintiff) is that the plaintiff not being a legal practitioner in possession of a Fidelity Fund Certificate (being a non-practicing Attorney) is not entitled to charge fees for anything done by the plaintiff for the defendant in terms of the provisions of section 41(1) and section 41(2) of the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979 and further because the drawing up or preparation of documents listed in section 83(8)(a)(i) to (v) of the Attorneys Act (as aforesaid) by any person except a practising Attorney in expectation of payment of fees constitutes as criminal offence. It has been submitted that "...a number of documents drawn by the plaintiff for the defendant fall with the categories of documents listed in section 83(8)(a) of the Attorneys Act". Further, and, tongue in cheek, the defendant contends that the particulars of claim in this regard "...are not sufficiently clear, so as to enable the defendant to ascertain, from the limited detail provided in the schedule, whether these attendances fall within the ambit of section 83(8) of the Attorneys' Act".

3.2 With regard to the second exception the defendant contends that the excerpts set out in the affidavit relied upon "...are in fact not defamatory and ... are not to be understood by readers to convey the meanings attributed to them by the plaintiff ... or ... carry the alleged sting referred to by the Plaintiff". A further objection is that the plaintiff has failed to set out the amount claimed in respect of each "defamatory publication" separately.

G. WEBSTER 
JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT
Date of hearing: 24 February 2011
Counsel for the Excipient: Adv MP van der Merwe
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv AJ Eyles