Disbarred Gauteng advocate Senzo Wiseman Mkhize has been granted R5,000 bail after appearing in the Secunda Magistrates’ Court on 18 September 2026.

Mkhize faces two counts of fraud and two counts of contravening the Legal Practice Council’s rules. His arrest followed a previous appearance before the Secunda Regional Court, where he allegedly requested legal representation. The circumstances surrounding that request reportedly raised concerns in court and led to his arrest.

Mkhize was released on condition that he does not communicate with witnesses in the case. The matter was postponed to 9 November 2026 for further investigation.

According to Legal Practice Council records, Mkhize was removed from the roll of legal practitioners in 2023 and prohibited from practising law. The latest allegations centre on claims that he nevertheless continued to practise after being removed from the roll.

The criminal case has drawn renewed attention to the serious findings against Mkhize by the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria.

Court found repeated misconduct

In a judgment handed down in September 2023, the High Court ordered that Mkhize be removed from the roll of legal practitioners. The court found that he was not a fit and proper person to continue practising law.

The case arose from six complaints lodged with the Legal Practice Council by members of the public. At the heart of the complaints was the allegation that Mkhize, who practised as a referral advocate, accepted instructions and payments directly from members of the public without the involvement of an attorney.

Under section 34 of the Legal Practice Act, a referral advocate generally receives a brief from an attorney. The attorney acts as the link between the advocate and the client, oversees the matter, handles the client relationship and manages the payment arrangements.

The court found that Mkhize repeatedly breached this rule.

Among the complainants was a woman identified as Ms Nkala, who paid Mkhize’s office R18,000 in three separate payments. She complained that, despite paying for legal assistance, she received little or no assistance and ultimately lost her home.

The payments were supported by receipts bearing the stamp of Mkhize’s office. Mkhize argued that administrators had accepted the money without his knowledge or approval. The court rejected that explanation, finding that a legal practitioner could not avoid responsibility by blaming employees or administrators.

“Counsel must be in control of their practice,” the court held, finding that Mkhize had failed to exercise the necessary oversight.

Other complaints included allegations that:

• A 60-year-old woman paid R10,000 but was not properly represented in court and was allegedly misled about what had happened;
• A 71-year-old woman paid R10,000 in connection with a property transaction that was not completed;
• An 83-year-old woman was charged fees for assistance with registering a title deed, including R5,000 described as sheriff’s fees;
• A client paid about R178,000 in a matter involving a trust, but alleged that Mkhize failed to carry out his mandate and refused to hand over the files;
• Another client paid R2,000 for a condonation application and was allegedly promised a refund that was never made.

The court found that Mkhize had also failed to respond promptly to correspondence from the Legal Practice Council and had not meaningfully addressed several of the complaints.

Court criticised delays and attacks on the LPC

The judgment also criticised Mkhize’s conduct during the disciplinary proceedings. He launched several urgent and interlocutory applications aimed at stopping or delaying the Legal Practice Council’s case. Some were struck from the roll or dismissed with costs.

The court found that Mkhize repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and deadlines, despite being given several opportunities to place his version before the court.

Judges described his approach as obstructive and abusive, saying that he attacked the Legal Practice Council instead of properly answering the allegations against him. The court also found that one of his applications had been brought for the ulterior purpose of avoiding the finalisation of the matter.

The judgment recorded that Mkhize had failed to comply with three court orders, including an order granting him a final opportunity to file outstanding papers.

Dispute over senior counsel’s robe

During the 18 July 2023 hearing, Mkhize appeared wearing the robe of senior counsel, despite not having been issued letters patent confirming that status.

When questioned by the court, he initially claimed that he was a senior counsel and said that the relevant document had been issued. He later conceded that he did not have letters patent and offered to remove the robe.

The court found that he had made a misrepresentation and was concerned that he subsequently changed his explanation, saying that he had not known that letters patent were required.

The judgment further recorded that a presiding officer later complained that Mkhize had continued to appear in a senior counsel’s robe and had allegedly told another court that his Legal Practice Council matter had been “sorted out”, even though it remained before the High Court.

Striking-off order

The High Court concluded that Mkhize’s conduct was not an isolated lapse. It found a pattern of repeated misconduct over several years, involving members of the public who had sought legal assistance, including elderly and vulnerable complainants.

The court said Mkhize had shown no meaningful contrition and had displayed a persistent disregard for court orders and the authority of the Legal Practice Council.

It therefore concluded that suspension would not adequately protect the public and ordered that Mkhize be struck from the roll.

The order also directed him to surrender his certificate of enrolment, prohibited him from operating accounts used to receive client funds and appointed a curator to take control of relevant trust accounts and records. He was ordered to hand over files and accounting records and to pay the Legal Practice Council’s costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

Mkhize’s review application was dismissed.

The criminal proceedings now before the Secunda Magistrates’ Court will determine whether he committed the alleged offences arising from his conduct after his removal from the roll. The allegations have not yet been tested in a criminal trial, and Mkhize remains legally presumed innocent until proven guilty.