Developments in the legal profession: Summary of Ramalepe and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others

The Gauteng Division of the High Court recently delivered an important judgment in Ramalepe and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2026] ZAGPPHC 443, in which it declared section 25(3)(a) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 unconstitutional. 

The Legal Practice Act regulates the admission and practice of both attorneys and advocates under a single statutory framework.

Although both professions are admitted as legal practitioners, section 25(3)(a) of the Act currently provides that an attorney may only appear in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court after having practised continuously for at least three years since admission and obtaining a certificate from the registrar of the relevant High Court.

By contrast, advocates enjoy rights of appearance in all courts upon admission and are not required to satisfy an equivalent waiting period. 

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the three-year waiting period, contending that it unjustifiably differentiated between attorneys and advocates who are admitted under the same legislative framework.

They argued that the provision infringed their constitutional rights to:

• equality; 

• human dignity; 

• freedom to choose and practise a profession; and 

• constituted irrational legislation. 

The Minister of Justice did not oppose the constitutional challenge on its merits. Instead, the Minister argued principally that the relief claimed is moot because Parliament was already considering legislative amendments that would remove the impugned provision. 

The Court rejected the Minister's argument that the matter was moot, holding that the mere existence of proposed legislation does not deprive a court of its constitutional obligation to determine the validity of legislation that remains in force. 

On the merits, the Court found that the distinction between attorneys and advocates lacked a rational and constitutionally justifiable basis.

The Court held that, although the Legal Practice Act unified the admission and regulation of legal practitioners under a single regulatory framework, newly admitted attorneys remained subject to a three-year restriction that did not apply to newly admitted advocates. No sufficient justification for this differentiation was advanced by the Minister. 

Accordingly, the Court declared section 25(3)(a) of the Legal Practice Act inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. As required by the Constitution, the declaration of invalidity has been referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation. Until the Constitutional Court confirms the order, the impugned provision remains in force. 

If the Constitutional Court confirms the declaration of invalidity, newly admitted attorneys would no longer be required to complete three years of continuous practice before acquiring rights of appearance in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court.

The judgment also reflects the continued evolution of the legal profession since the enactment of the Legal Practice Act. While attorneys and advocates continue to perform distinct roles in many respects, the Court recognised that both professions are now admitted and regulated under a common statutory framework, making differential treatment increasingly difficult to justify without a rational basis. 

For the present, however, the existing statutory requirements remain applicable until the Constitutional Court confirms the declaration of invalidity or Parliament amends the legislation.

Nomalanga Langa

LLB

Candidate Attorney at Le Roux Vivier Attorneys

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm. This content is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the law may change and its application depends on the specific facts of each matter. Readers should seek professional legal advice before acting on any information contained herein. The firm and the author(s) accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.