A Joburg law firm is suing former chief executive officer of the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Mamodupi Mohlala for her alleged failure to pay its legal fees.
The lawyer used another law firm as a front for provision of Mohlala’s legal services against the PPRA to sidestep conflict of interest. This was because his entity was at that time rendering services for PPRA.
Mathopo Attorneys Incorporated has filed papers in the Johannesburg High Court demanding close to R400 000 from Mohlala, whom it accused of failing to settle a legal bill after its lawyer Tshepo Mathopo provided legal services for her using DM5 Incorporated during her legal battle with PPRA, which she lost with costs.
In his founding affidavit, Mathopo stated that Mohlala approached them after PPRA placed her on precautionary
suspension in March 2022 for alleged misconduct.
When Mohlala approached them, she was aware of the potential conflict of interest, as they were at that time handling certain matters for the PPRA.
Mathopo said he agreed with Mohlala to appoint another law firm, DM5 Incorporated, to act as her attorneys of record to render all the required legal services.
Immediately afterwards, he said, Mohlala instructed them to launch an urgent application where she sought to have hersuspension declared unlawful.
Mathopo said he hired Adv Gys Rautenbach SC and advocate Annelene van den Heever, Adv Francois Botes SC and Adv Fana Nalane SC to be part of the legal team.
He said the urgent application was later dismissed.
Mohlala, Mathopo said, asked the firm to immediately challenge the judgment through appeal directly to the Constitutional Court. He said he hired counsels Anton Katz SC and Adv Eshed Cohen, who specialise in constitutional law, at Mohlala’s behest.
On April 29, 2022, he sent her an invoice to pay the legal costs, and she replied via a WhatsApp message that she would do so after selling her house.
A few days later, Mohlala requested him to seek an opinion from Wim Trengove SC regarding the prospects of a direct Constitutional Court appeal against the judgment. She abandoned the idea after Trengove advised against it.
Mohlala, said the lawyer, instructed them to instead file an application for leave to appeal in the high court.
The application for leave to appeal was argued on May 23, 2022, and was dismissed with costs.
After the dismissal, Mohlala terminated the Mathopo mandate and undertook to make payment to the firm and the counsel’s fees but failed to do so.
Mathopo said on May 13, 2022, he sent Nalane’s invoice to Mohlala for payment, who undertook to do so.
He said in June 2022 he sent her an updated recon of the outstanding fees, which now included Trengove’s and Nalane’s invoices.
“In response, the respondent maintained that she still disputes Rautenbach’s invoice and enquired if she is not entitled to three months to pay counsel’s bills,” he stated.
On August 1, 2022, he told her that they had received a letter of demand from Rautenbach for payment of his fees.
On September 21, 2022, Mohlala sent him a letter proposing to pay the legal fees of R50 000 a month.
Notwithstanding, Mohlala failed to pay off the fees.
He said as a result, Botes, Rautenbach and Van den Heever have since instituted separate legal actions against Mohlala for the non-payment of their fees.
“The remainder of the counsels she instructed the applicant to brief have to date not been paid. The respondent is, in the circumstances, indebted to the applicant in the total sum of R378 365.23..,” Mathopo stated in the court documents.
In her replying affidavit, Mohlala said there was no contract between her and the firm to render legal services to her.
“The plaintiff does not have locus standi to bring the action against the defendant.
“To further demonstrate that there is no locus standi, the plaintiff does not appear in any of the court processes that he refers to as the attorney of record or as a representative of the defendant,” she stated.
Mohlala accused Mathopo of making “very serious allegations about DM5 being used as a front for my court processes, but this is not substantiated with a confirmatory affidavit”.
Mathopo, she said, failed to state why DM5 is not a plaintiff in this matter, as the court papers refer to them as the attorneys of record.
“The issue now becomes that the defendant is going to suffer double jeopardy because they are now faced with a bill of costs for work done by DM5, and similarly, the plaintiff is bringing an application for the same work,” she stated.
