P.C. Mogale INC Attorneys

18/06/2026

In the Western Cape High court after one of the major financial services providers sent an adverse credit record against our client to the credit bereu for a loan that was fraudulently obtained,we sued the company for a million rand and since nobody showed up from the other side,a default judgment was granted in our favour as prayed for.
What happened is that our client only discovered when she wanted to purchase an asset on credit that she has an unpaid loan of about R80G,she was surprised because she had never taken a loan anywhere in her whole life!
She was given the details of the financial institution and upon investigation it was obvious that someone impersonated her!the impersonator even went on to open a bank account in her names and received the money and vanished in to thin air.
Our gripe was firstly with the financial institution as to how did they let something like this happen with the Financial Intelligence Center Act (F**A) in operation.We discovered that the loan application was done telephonically and there was no vigilance in verification of the identity of the applicant.Our argument was that had they followed the National Credit Act and F**A to the latter,they could have arrested the would be fraudster,therefore it was due to their negligence that they succeeded.
They did not stop there,after withdrawing all the funds,only one instalment was paid,then our client found her credit record affected negatively hence she couldn’t obtain a credit for the asset she so desperately needed,this affected her emotionally and psychologically as her employer even had to withdraw the subsidy due to non-usage.The financial institution,after a lengthy engagement with our office and pushing us from pillar to post,eventually conceded that the loan was not obtained by our client,they had to write it off…again we had to fight to get the records updated at the credit bureau which eventually happened and our client was able to get the asset!
It was now time to take the financial institution to the cleaners for their negligence,we honestly believe that it was an internal job,we sued for R1M ,since the company is based in the Western Cape,we issued summons in the Western Cape high court.
The court agreed with us that the company’s conduct amounted to a delict and she has to be compensated.
The second leg is to take the battle to the bank that allowed the impersonator to open a bank account in our client’s names…we served the summons,the bank is promising us a fierce battle but we are not retreating!

16/06/2026

26/05/2026

Every time in the criminal court before the court starts ,the prosecutor will inform the presiding officer that “Your worship,the court is duly constituted “ this is not just a phrase,it has huge significance on the legitimacy of such proceedings!
The court will be duly constituted if:
The presiding officer,the Public Prosecutor,Stenographer,Language Practitioner (interpreter),Court Orderly and these symbols:The South African flag and the Coat of Arms are all there in the same court room!
The Public Prosecutor is the “dominus litis”in the criminal proceedings,meaning he is the one who drives the litigation,he decides which matters to prosecute and which ones not to…
Now the question is what happens or what is the status of the proceedings that were ran when the court was not duly constituted?like where the prosecutor was not there?they are what we call “irregular “ proceedings because they were procedurally flawed,the remedy that a litigant or a party who feels aggrieved by the results thereof has,is to take those proceedings on “Review “ not on “Appeal “!
Mpumalanga Prosecuting Authority says they are taking the decision of the magistrate who convicted their prosecutor for contempt of court and struck the bail application off the roll on appeal,however they say the court was not “duly constituted “ when the whole drama occurred,because the prosecutor was not there,which means these were “irregular “ proceedings which are”Reviewable “ and not “appealable” The question is,who called the matter because the dominus litis was not there?where did the magistrate get the charge sheet for the matter to enable her to strike it off?
Let’s hear your views…should they appeal or review?

19/05/2026

Check out our labour department!

18/05/2026

Sometimes you may think you have seen it all,at my age after having practiced criminal law for at least 29 years,including my days as a candidate attorney,I have never thought I would see the day a court of law,let alone a magistrate,invoking the provisions of Section 342A in a bail application,let alone a partly heard one
and which is opposed!
I have tried on many occasions to get that reprieve in favour of my clients but the court will always remind me that there are factors that must be considered before such kind of relief is granted:
The nature of the prejudice
Whether the delay is unreasonable
The nature of the charges
Now in casu,the prejudice that would be suffered by the accused persons would be if they are remanded in custody,the relief,would be to consider the state’s case closed and decide on the bail application on the available facts! The interests of justice,despite the conduct of the prosecutor,demanded that the matter be dealt with differently rather than striking it off the roll!
The conduct of the individual should have been differentiated from that of the institution,the magistrate punished the prosecutor and proceeded to punish his employer and poor lady justice caught smoke also!
The SAPS who investigated the crime and secured the arrest only for the prosecution to mess it up,the judiciary instead of providing the solution,made it worse!
The question is,did the magistrate act rationally by striking Sibanyoni and other Three’s matter from the roll or she overreacted?

18/05/2026

Brown Mogotsi appeared in the Johannesburg magistrate court this morning on charges of obstructing the course of justice,this after he was arrested on Friday last week and had to spend the weekend in custody.
On first appearance the accused is not asked to plead,the court is expected to consider the question of bail whether the accused is suitable to be released on bail or not,depending on the nature of the offence,which are classified as “schedules” it will determine whether the burden is on the side of the accused to convince the court that the interests of justice demand that he be released on bail or it is the state that must show the court that the accused is not suitable to be released on bail.
The state may,on the first appearance,request the court to postpone the matter for a period of not more than seven days to conduct investigations necessary for bail application like verification of address and record of previous convictions,in that event the accused will be remanded in custody before he can be released on bail.
On the postponed date,the state will also indicate if whether they are opposing bail or not,in the event the bail is opposed,it may mean that the accused may spend another week in custody as the process of a formal bail application,which is opposed,may take a week to be finalized.
The state will notoriously use this process to frustrate the accused even though they know the accused is likely to be released on bail.
Mr Mogotsi suffered the same fate as his matter was postponed for seven days to allow the investigators to “verify “ his address and for the fact that he stays in Mahikeng,they cannot do it within three days.
The matter will now be back in court next Monday,it is two weekends in custody.
Correctly or wrongly so,he has been saying he is going to sue the state for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution,now he may be punished for those utterances,the state may still come back on Monday and oppose the bail application…
Maybe our bail system needs a review?

14/05/2026

Freedom is a birthright,no wonder the right to freedom and freedom of movement are entrenched in the Bill of Rights of our constitution.
Nandipha(former doctor)Magudumana is pulling all the stops to be free and escape the charges of aiding and abetting a fugitive,since her deportation/extradition from Tanzania and eventual arrest and incarceration,she has been fighting for her freedom with every drop of energy in her blood.
She has enlisted the services of Adv Anton Katz ,a renowned international and constitutional law expert to secure her release and eventually avoid trial for her role in Thabo Bester’s daring escape from prison!
They started at Bloemfontein High court,then the SCA and today they are at the Constitutional Court.
Adv Katz submitted that his client was wrongly and unlawfully extradited in disguise as if he was deported and everything that could go wrong went wrong in that process and therefore no South African court can have jurisdiction over her on the charges that she was arrested and brought in to the country about and therefore she must be released immediately and never be charged again.
On the other hand the State is saying she was brought legally as a deportee in to the country and she should face the music!
The question that Adv Katz tried by all means to avoid,deliberately so,which to me looks like a trump card,was whether declaring the deportation unlawful will mean that the prosecution of Nandipha will be permanently stopped?
Considering the nature of the charges ,what will that mean to the administration of justice in the country?
The same court has dealt with a similar situation with Moroadi Cholota,even though it found the extradition to be flawed,the court however declared that the unlawfulness of the extradition does not affect the prosecution…I suppose the only comfort in this instance,as we hinted,will be to sue for unlawful arrest and detention,for the sake of justice,the charges should stay!
The court reserved the judgment…
Desperate times!
Your thoughts please?

12/05/2026

What president Ramaphosa is about to embark on,will be another long journey to justice for the South Africans and him personally…
The term judicial review is not foreign to many South Africans’ ears as we have heard about it on several occasions…The president himself had once took Adv Busi Mkhwebane’s report as a Public Protector on review so had Pravin Gordan.
This time it is a different ball game…
In terms of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act(PAJA) a review application must be brought to court within a “reasonable time” which is generally recorded as 180 days,that is six months after the decision has been made or reasons for the decision having been furnished.
An applicant who brings a review application outside the 180 days ,will first have to request the court to grant him condonation for the late application.The court may grant such application,if it agrees with him that he has given good reasons for the delay and further that it will be in the best interest of justice if condonation is granted.
There is also an option to bring the application for review on common law,for as long as it doesn’t qualify under PAJA or the parties may agree to proceed with the application even if it is out of time.
In this instance,the President intends to review a report of the section 89 committee which was issued in November 2022,it is now three years since that report was published,parliament voted on it,the constitutional court case by EFF was about the procedure the parliament adopted in dealing with the report.
The question is,is the president still on time to bring a review application?
If so,when does the 180 days clock start ticking in this one?
If not,will he be able to pursued the court that it is in the public interest or interest of justice that he be granted condonation?
You can expect this one to go all the way to the constitutional court again as there will be appeals and cross appeals,interlocutory and counter applications and amicus applications.
It can therefore take another three years before the score is settled,deliberately or disparately,either way,is the president within his rights or he is just clutching at straws?

07/05/2026

The National Assembly is constituted by elected members and the party that has majority of members is said to be representing the interests of the majority of the electorate.
The golden rule in a democracy is that the majority rules,whether the policies are wrong or right ,for as long as they are supported by the majority,they will continue to govern.
The courts of law also,where there are more than two judges adjudicating over a matter,including the SCA and the CONCOURT,the majority decision becomes the final order of the court!
Now,the constitutional court cannot dictate to the majority how to vote…there@ is a difference between failing to act and acting in an unpopular manner.
The reason why we have elections is to have opportunity to vote out MP’s who don’t take decisions that are in the interests of the electorate.
My submission is that ,if the constitutional court finds in favour of EFF and ATM ,it will be overreaching,we can therefore for now sleep peacefully as the CONCOURT will not throw the country in to disarray,more over ,the applicants did not make a good case,therefore their application is bound to fail…

05/05/2026

Today I was a lone ranger ,I had to do all the hard work including carrying bags by myself as the whole team was out doing the employer’s work.
I was back in the urgent court after the applicant failed to comply with the directives last week and the matter removed from the roll with costs in the application.
The application was reinstated to today and there was nowhere to run to this time..
We have raised “points in limine” or what is called points of law against the applicant in that we believed he does not have “locus standi” or a legal standing to institute the proceedings.
It is a requirement in law that if you allege that you are bringing a court process on behalf of other people or a group of individuals,you must have an authority to act as their representative,otherwise you lack “locus standi”,this is a legal technicality which still gives the offending party opportunity to remedy the error.
The applicant claims to be a leader of a community and acting for them,the application has got nothing to do with him but the members,however in his papers there was nothing to suggest that those individuals do even know that he was in court for them.
The court agreed with us that the applicant did not have a legal standing and therefore there was no application for the court to entertain and consequently,the application was struck off the roll with costs,the costs order means that he will also be responsible for the costs incurred the last time the matter was removed from the roll…