Disbarred lawyer loses bid to hold on to funds

A disbarred lawyer has failed in his latest bid to halt a R34m recovery claim by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), which alleges the money was defrauded from the state.

A ruling by the Special Tribunal against Hassan Ebrahim Kajee, who once worked for the office of the state attorney, means that a years-long legal tussle can now proceed.

The SIU, which investigates and prosecutes corruption, malpractice and maladministration by organs of state, alleges Kajee received the amount in question over several years as a result of an alleged corrupt and collusive relationship with Gustav Lekabe, the former head of the Johannesburg state attorney’s office.

Lekabe is alleged to have briefed Kajee in many matters in which Kajee charged for bogus legal fees, doubled-charged for other matters and double invoiced the state attorney’s office. Kajee and Lekabe have since been disbarred.

The SIU is pursuing claims against Lekabe at the Special Tribunal, but that case stalled due to its links to Kajee’s case. After Tuesday’s ruling, however, the cases can now proceed.

The SIU lodged its initial claim against Kajee in 2021 with the Special Tribunal, the statutory body that deals with SIU recovery claims. After a dispute over documents, the tribunal ordered Kajee to file his defence plea by September 30 2022.

A series of claims between Kajee and the SIU ensued before the SIU requested that Kajee’s various applications be disregarded entirely for the matter to proceed.

In February 2023, then president of the Special Tribunal, Lebogang Modiba, ruled that Kajee’s conduct was “irregular” and dismissed his claims.

She also ruled that because he missed the deadline to file his defence in September 2022, he was “barred” from putting his version of events or defence to the tribunal.

Unsatisfied, Kajee launched a review of Modiba’s findings to Modiba herself.

On Tuesday, she dismissed Kajee’s review, ruling that “the relief Kajee seeks is incompetent”. He had failed to understand the law regarding the tribunal’s functions, she added.

“Only a high court has jurisdiction to review the decision ... of any inferior court and/or of any tribunal,” she wrote.

“The tribunal cannot review its own judgments.”

Modiba noted that “Kajee’s application is so bad in law that it would be a waste of scarce judicial resources to consider the grounds of opposition set out [by the SIU].” She dismissed Kajee’s case with punitive costs, meaning the recovery case can legally continue.

However, Modiba has since resigned, apparently bringing the tribunal as a whole to a halt. It is unclear when her replacement will be announced.

The SIU did not respond to queries.