ETHICS

1. Rules of conduct relating to attorneys as contained in

LAWSA (green edition): Vol 14 as well as the red First
Reissue thereof.

2. The rules applying to:

(a) Cross-examination
(b) Invective, irrelevant or defamatory material
(c) Counsel’s duty not to mislead the court
(d) Duty to disclose material facts when making ex parte
applications
(e) The independence of counsel
(f) Behaviour in court
(g) Privilege
(h) Conflict of interest between two clients
(i) Fit and proper person to practice
(j) General

3. In order to amplify and guide Candidates in preparation

concerning their examinations and subsequent careers in
practice, Candidates are advised that it is sound practice to
read case law comprehensively.

(a) Cross-examination
S v Radebe 1973 (1) SA 796 (AD) at 814 A-D
S v Azov 1974 (1) SA 808 (T) at 810G-811B
S v Booi 1964 (1) SA 224 (E) at 227-228
 2
S v Makaula 1964 (2) SA 575 (E) at 578
S v W 1963 (3) SA 516 (AD) at 523 C-F
S v Xoswa 1965 (1) SA 267 (C) at 273 B-E
S v Kubeka 1982 (1) SA 534 (W)
S v Omar 1982 (2) SA 357 (N)
S v Gidi & Ano 1984 (4) SA 537 (C)
President of the RSA v SA Rugby Football Union
2000(1) SA 1(CC)
S v Zwane 1993 (3) SA 393 (W)
S v Blaauw 1989 (1) SA 202 (A)
S v Tswai 1988 (1) SA 851 (C)
S v Nkibane 1989 (2) SA 421 (NC)
S v Nkata 1990 (4) SA 250(A)

Different works are published concerning the South

African Law of Evidence and Technique in Litigation.
Under the respective headings of cross-examination,
the applicable (in Namibia) rules and duties of
counsel conducting cross-examination may be
gleaned.

Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of

1977, as amended by the addition of subsections (3)
to (6) thereto by Act 24 of 2003. The relevant
discussions in Du Toit et al’s Commentary on the
Criminal Procedure Act are included.

(b) Invective, irrelevant or defamatory material

Findlay v Knight 1935 (AD) 58 at 71-73
Preston v Luyt 1911 EDL 298
Basner v Trigger 1946 (AD) 83 at 106
Gluckman v Schneider 1936 (AD) 151 at 161-162
Joubert v Venter 1985 (1) SA 654 (A)
Pakendorf v De Flamingh 1982(3) SA 146 (A)
 3
(c) Counsel’s duty not to mislead the court
Ex parte Swan 1973 (2) SA 427 (N) at 434H
Ex parte Swan 1973 (4) SA 784 (AD)
S v Hollenbach 1971 (4) SA 636 (NC) at 638
BEF (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town Municipality 1990 (2) SA
337 (C)
General Council of the Bar of SA v Matthys 2002(5)
SA 1 (E)

(d) Duty to disclose material facts when making ex

parte applications
Logie v Priest 1926 (AD) 312 at 323
Power NO v Beiber & Ors 1955 (A) SA 490 (W) at
503-4
Ex parte Satbel 1984 (4) SA 347 (W)
Herbstein & van Winsen, 3rd Edition, pp 80-81

(e) Behaviour in court

R v Silber 1952 (2) SA 475 (AD)
R v Rosenstein 1943 TPD 65
S v Tromp 1966 (1) SA 646 (N) at 653 G-H; 655 C;
655 H-656A
S v Nel 1991 (1) SA 730 (A)

(f) Privilege
Herman Maasdorp & Barker v S I R 1968 (4) at 160
and 162-164
R v Cox and Railton 1884 (14) Q B D 153
S v Kearney 1964 (2) SA 495 (AD) AT 499-500
R v Fouche 1953 (1) SA 440 (W) at 445-449
Joubert Others v Venter 1985 (1) SA 654 (A)
Progrund v Yutar 1967 (2) SA 654 (A)

(g) Conflict of interest between two clients

 4
S v Jacobs 1970 (3) SA493 (E)
S v Naidoo 1974 (3) SA 706 (AD) at 712D-713E
Ex parte Swan 1973 (2) SA 427 (N) at 432-433
S v Moseli 1969 (1) SA 646 (O)

(h) Fit and proper person to practice

Fine v Society of Advocates of SA (WD) 1983 (4) SA
488 (A)
Hayes v The Bar Council 1981 (3) SA 1070 (ZAD)
GCB of SA v Matthys, op cit

(i) General (inclusive of misconduct under previous

headings)
De Freitas and Another v Society of Advocates of
Natal and another 2001 (3) SA 750 (SCA)
Competition Commission v General Council of the
BAR of SA 2002(6) SA 606
Vereniging van Advokate van SA (Witwatersrand
Afdeling) v Theunissen 1979(2) SA 218(T)
Society of Advocates of SA (Witwatersrand Division)
v Rottanburg 1984 (4) SA 35(T)
Society of Advocates of SA (Witwatersrand Division)
v Edeling 1998 (2) SA 852(W)
Toto v Special Investigating Unit 2001 (1) SA673 (E),
[2000] 2 All SA 91 (E)
GCB of SA v Mattys, op cit
Duncan v Roets 1949 (1) SA 226 (TPD)
S v Kuzatjike 1992 NR 70 (HC) at 72G-73F
S v Memami 1994 (1) SA 515 (W)
Algemene Balieraad van SA v Burger 1993 (4) SA
510 (T)
S v Ntuli 2003 (4) SA 258 (W) (this case deserves
careful reflection).