STEERING COMMITTEE - DOC - DOC

Document Sample
STEERING COMMITTEE - DOC - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					       LEGAL NOTES VOL 9/2006

       Compiled by: Adv M Klein


                 Contents


1.   SA Law Reports August 2006
2.   ALL SA Law Reports August 2006
3.   SA Criminal Law Reports August 2006
4.   New Legislation
                           LEGAL NOTES

                       INDEX: VOL 9 OF 2006

Administrative law            Judicial review
Civil procedure               Representation in court
Company law                   Guarantee
Constitutional law            Constitutional damages
Constitutional practice       Courts – Powers of
Contempt of court             Failure to comply with court order
Contract                      Formalities – Signature of document
Contract                      Payment of interests
Court – High Court            Jurisdiction
Damages                       Measure of
Discovery and inspection      Discovery
Evidence                      Hearsay evidence
Evidence                      Adequacy of proof
Execution                     Immovable property
Indictment and charge         Splitting of charges
Insurance                     Insolvency
Intellectual property         Copyright
Labour law                    Constructive dismissal
Maintenance                   For children
Micro finance                 regulations
Moneylending contract         Clause in contract
Motor vehicle accidents       Compensation
Practice                      “further and/or alternative relief”
Practice                      Rescission
Principal and surety          Action against surety
Sale                          Of land
Sale                          Of land – Double sale
Sale – of goods               Latent defects
Search and seizure            Restraint order
Sentence                      Imprisonment
Succession                    Discriminatory provisions in will
EDITORIAL
The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development appointed a Steering
Committee in January 2006. The inaugural meeting of the Steering Committee
took place on the 15th February 2006. During this meeting all members
expressed their common interests and commitment to work towards the
transformation of the legal services sector and the legal profession.

The members of the Steering Committee consist of individuals from
representative associations and organisations of the legal profession. The
associations and organizations Steering Committee members are affiliated to
include Advocates for Transformation (AFT), Black Lawyers Association
(BLA), Black Women Lawyers Association (BWLA), Law Societies of South
Africa (LSSA), Independent Advocates Association (IAASA), Centre for
Applied Legal Studies (CALS), National Paralegal Institute (NPI), Waweth
Policy Research Agency, the Society of Law Teachers of Southern Africa
Association (SLTSA), Centre for African Renaissance Studies (CARS), and
the DoJ&CD Policy Chief Directorate (PCD). The Steering Committee
member affiliated to the General Council of the Bar (GCB) resigned from his
appointment in July 2006, shortly after the first draft legal services charter was
produced.

The mandate of the Steering Committee is to draft a legal services charter
and to advise the Minister on further consultative processes with the
stakeholders.

Adv Menzi Simelane, the Director-General of the Department of Justice was
appointed as the Chairperson of the Steering Committee, and Adv Bonisiwe
Makhene, the Chief Director of the Policy Unit was appointed as the Deputy
Chairperson. Mr Neville Gawula was appointed as the Head of the Secretariat
to the Steering Committee.

A Drafting Team was appointed during the inaugural meeting of the Steering
Committee. Ms Brenda Madumisa is the Chairperson of the Drafting Team,
with Adv McCaps Motimele, Adv Mark Hawyes and Mr Nano Matlala as
members of the Drafting Team. Congratulations Mark!
        THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS
                AUGUST 2006 (4)


EX PARTE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
2006 (4) SA 309 CC

Constitutional practice – Courts – Powers of – Court having power to
extend period of suspension of order of constitutional invalidity only until
such time as period of suspension expires – Courts not having power to
order revival of expired period of suspension.

FAKIE NO v CCII SYSTEMS (PTY) LTD
2006 (4) SA 326 SCA

Contempt of court – Failure to comply with court order – Application for
committal for contempt – Civil contempt – Standard of proof – Proof
beyond reasonable doubt required for civil contempt of court proceedings.

MGOQI v CITY OF CAPE TOWN AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 355 CPD

Practice – “further and/or alternative relief “– Scope of – Applicant seeking,
in heads of argument, relief not sought in notice of motion – Relief in
question sought under heading „further and/or alternative relief‟ – Not
apparent from applicant‟s founding or replying affidavit that such relief
sought – Court declining to consider relief.

Local authority – Officers – Executive mayor – Powers of – Executive
mayor not having power to amend own delegated powers by removing
limitation on such powers – Executive mayor purporting to amend clause
5.2.10 of City of Cape Town‟s system of delegations to delete requirement
that she make decisions in consultation with municipal manager – In
exercise of her amended powers, executive mayor purporting to extend
period of employment of municipal manager by amending his contract of
employment.       Accordingly, executive mayor‟s decisions to extend
municipal manager‟s period of employment being set aside and latter‟s
amended employment contract being declared unlawful and invalid.

VAN AARDT AND ANOTHER v WEEHUIZEN AND OTHERS
2006 (10 SA 401 NPD

Contract – Formalities – Signature of document – Where obligation to
append signature to document arising out of agreement between parties,
Court having power to order, in alternative, signature of document by
official if respondent refuses to sign document in compliance with Court
order – Respondent‟s obligation arising out of applicant‟s right of pre-
emption, being variety of pactum de contrahendo – Court having power to
grant order directing respondent to sign necessary documentation to
effect, transfer, and in event of respondent‟s refusal to do so, director
Deputy Sheriff to sign documentation.

BURGER v BURGER AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 414 D&CLD

Maintenance – For children – Securing of payment of future maintenance
Order for securing such payment from parent‟s portion and proceeds of
sale of immovable property – High Court interdicting holder of father‟s fund
from making payment to him from funds until children became self-
supporting – Father exhibiting unsettled and hostile attitude towards
mother‟s proposal that his portion of proceedings of sale of property be
allocated to future maintenance of children – Attitude likely to have same
result as intentional dissipation of funds – Court accordingly granting order
restraining payment by holder of funds to father until children become self-
supporting.

NEDBANK LTD v MASHIYA AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 422 TPD

Execution – Immovable property – Order declaring specially hypothecated
immovable property executable – Application for – Necessary allegations –
Court setting out allegations to be contained in founding affidavits to
application for default judgment where plaintiff simultaneously seeking
order declaring defendant‟s specially hypothecated immovable property
executable – In light of deficiencies in plaintiff‟s papers, Court postponing
matter sine die to allow plaintiff opportunity to supplement papers.

Held, that in terms of the Transvaal rules of practice, a creditor who sought
to have his debtor‟s specially hypothecated immovable property declared
executable was required to make the following averments in the founding
affidavit to his application for default judgment: (1) the amount of the
arrears as at date of the application for default judgment; (2) whether the
property had been acquired by means of, or with the assistance of, a State
subsidy; (3) whether or not, to the creditor‟s knowledge, the property was
occupied; (4) whether the property was used for residential or commercial
purposes; and (5) whether the debt had been incurred in order to acquire
the property.

KR SIBANYONI TRANSPORT SERVICES CC v SHERIFF, TRANSVAAL
HC
2006 (4) SA 429 TPD

Practice – Rescission – Grounds for – At common law, judgments
rescindable on grounds of fraud and iustus error – Semble: There could
also be other grounds based on justice and fairness.
The appellant sought to rescind an order based on a settlement agreement
between the parties on the basis that he never gave instructions to his
attorneys to agree to the order.

Held, that based on the facts and the probabilities in casu, a settlement
had been reached, and that any misunderstanding could not have been a
iustus error. The application was accordingly without foundation in law or
in fact, and fell to be dismissed.

UNITAS HOSPITAL v VAN WYK AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 436 SCA

Discovery and inspection – Discovery – Promotion of Access to
Information Act 2 of 2000 – Impact of on discovery procedure – PAIA
having no impact on discovery procedure – Once court proceedings begin,
access to information governed by Uniform Rules of Court – Provisions of
PAIA no longer applicable as between parties.

The first respondent intended instituting action against the appellant
hospital for damages arising out the death of her late husband while he
was a patient at the hospital. She contended that his death was the result
of negligence on the part of the hospital‟s nursing staff.

With a view to instituting those proceedings the first respondent brought an
application in the High court against the appellant and the second
respondent under s 50 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of
2000 (PAIA). She sought access to a report that had been compiled by
the second respondent on general nursing conditions in the ICU and high-
care units at the hospital.

Held, that the first respondent had failed to meet even the threshold
requirement that the report would be of assistance to her in the action she
intended instituting against the appellant. The question whether, in
addition, she had shown an „element of need‟ or „substantial advantage‟
therefore did not arise. Consequently the application ought to have been
dismissed.

HAUPT t/a SOFT COPY v BREWERS MARKETING INTELLIGENCE
2006 (4) SA 458 SCA

Intellectual property – Copyright – Infringement of computer programs
what constitutes infringement Reproduction of substantial part of computer
program – Whether substantial part of computer program being
reproduced depending more on quality than on quantity of reproduction.
Only 26% of graphic content and 83% of search component of computer
program being reproduced, amount to 63 lines out of several thousand
lines of source code – However, such components being valuable
ingredients of program – Reproduction thus constituting reproduction of
substantial part of computer program – Accordingly, reproduction infringing
copyright in computer program – Court interdicting continued infringement.
MEC. DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, EASTERN CAPE v KATE
2006 (4) SA 478 SCA

Constitutional law – Constitutional damages – Award of – Appropriateness
of – Unreasonable delay in considering claimant‟s application for disability
grant resulting in denial of claimant‟s right to social assistance during
period of delay – Problem of unreasonable delays in administration of
social grants having become endemic.

The decision in Kate v MEC for Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape
2005 (1) SA 141 (SE) ([2005]) 1 All SA 745) substantially confirmed.

SASFIN BANK LTD v SOHO UNIT 14 CC t/a AVENTURA EILAND AND
OTHERS
2006 (4) SA 513 TPD

Principal and surety – Action against surety – by undisclosed principal –
Application of doctrine of undisclosed principle not invalidating suretyship
for want of compliance with s 6 of General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956
– Section requiring terms of contract of suretyship, including identity of
creditor, to be embodied in written document – However, sufficient for such
purposes that identity of creditor capable of being extrinsic evidence –
Identity of undisclosed principal capable of being proved by extrinsic
evidence – Reliance on doctrine of undisclosed principal thus not
invalidating contract of suretyship in terms of s 6 of Act.

GEYSER v NEDBANK LTD AND OTHERS: IN RE NEDBANK LTD v
GEYSER
2006 (4) SA 544 WLD

Court – High Court – Jurisdiction. The first respondent had instituted
action in the Witwatersrand Local Division for payment of the balance of
moneys due and owing in terms of a written agreement of loan. It
appeared that the agreement of loan had been entered into in Pretoria,
outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and all the obligations of the parties in
terms of the loan agreement had to be performed outside the jurisdiction of
the Court.

Held, on the authorities, that the choice of domicilium citandi et executandi
in Johannesburg within the jurisdiction of the Court was clearly not enough
to establish the jurisdiction of the Court.(The parties chose their domicilium
and not the court‟s jurisdiction)

Held, further, that so much of the loan transaction had occurred outside of
the jurisdiction of this Court, and so little within it, that there were not
enough factors giving rise to the jurisdiction of this Court and to justify its
competence to hear the matter.
VAN NIEKERK AND ANOTHER v FAVEL AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 548 WLD

Sale – Of land – Breach of contract by purchaser – Rectification of –
Demand by seller under s 19 of Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 that
breach be rectified – Purchaser to be given 30 days to rectify alleged
breach (s 19 (2)(b)) – Thirty-day period commencing on date of posting of
seller‟s demand.

BAFANA FINANCE MABOPANE v MAKWAKWA AND ANOTHER
2006 (4) SA 581 SCA

Moneylending contract – Clause in contract whereby debtor undertakes
not to apply for administration order in terms s 74(1) of the Magistrates‟
Courts Act 32 of 1944 and that loan debt will not form part of
administration order for which debtor might apply – Such clause
unenforceable as being contrary to public interest.

SMITH v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
2006 (4) SDA 590 SCA

Motor vehicle accidents – Compensation – Claim in terms of Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 – Unidentified owner or driver – Liability of
Fund to negligent driver – Designated beneficiary of Fund the injured third
party and not uninjured negligent driver – Fund under no liability to
negligent driver.

The decision in the Eastern Cape Division in Smith v Road Accident Fund
[2004] 4 All SA 579 confirmed.

HARLEY v UPWARD SPIRAL 1196 CC AND OTHERS
2006 (4) SA 597 D&CLD

Sale – Of land – Double sale – Doctrine of notice - First purchaser
retaining right to transfer of property where second purchaser accepting
transfer with knowledge of first purchaser‟s rights in terms of first sale –
Court granting order in form of rule nisi directing re-transfer of property
from second purchaser and seller from, inter alia, selling property.
                       ALL S.A. LAW REPORTS
                            AUGUST 2006

GARDNER AND ANOTHER v MARGO
[2006] 3 All SA 229 (SCA)

Company law – Guarantee provided by company regarding price obtainable
for sale of shares – Whether constituting a breach of the provisions of
Companies Act 61 of 1973 – Section 38.

The dispute between the parties centred largely on the amount to which the
third party was entitled in respect of shares sold on his behalf.

A final point considered by the Court was whether a guarantee provided by
the second appellant in respect of the amount he would receive for the sale of
his shares constituted a breach of the provisions of section 38 of the
Companies Act 61 of 1973. The Court found that it did not,

GQWETHA v TRANSKEI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS LTD
[2006] 3 All SA 245 (SCA)

Administrative law – Judicial review – Unreasonable delay – Pursuant to a
disciplinary enquiry, the appellant was dismissed by the first respondent on
account of alleged financial irregularities. She instituted proceedings for
judicial review to have the dismissal set aside.

According to the majority of the Court, it was important for the efficient
functioning of public bodies that a challenge to the validity of their decisions
should be initiated without undue delay. In the present case the delay of
fourteen months, for which there was no adequate explanation, was
unreasonable, and no grounds had been shown for overlooking. The appeal
was dismissed with costs.

MICRO FINANCE REGULATORY COUNCIL v AAA INVESTMENT (PTY)
LTD AND ANOTHER
[2006] 3 All SA 256 (SCA)

Micro finance – regulations - The first respondent‟s submission regarding the
appellant‟s authority to make its rules was misconceived. In regulating micro-
lenders who agree to such regulation it does not purport to be exercising
legislative or other public powers that require a constitutional or legislative
source. It purports only to regulate those who are willing to submit to its
regime, and the source of its authority to do so is their consent. The appellant
was accordingly clearly entitled to make its rules.

The appeal was upheld with costs.
NAVY TWO CC v INDUSTRIAL ZONE LTD
[2006] 3 All SA 263 (SCA)

Civil procedure – Representation in court – Sole member of a close
corporation seeking to represent it – Whether case fell within exception to rule
barring a person who is not a practitioner from representing entity – Court
should have exercised discretion before making decision. Only practitioners
can represent close corporations.

DU PREEZ v MINISTER OF                  JUSTICE     AND     CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
[2006] 3 All SA 271 (SE)

Constitutional law – Allegation of unfair discrimination – Weighting of short
listing criteria in order to comply with affirmative action measures – Where
effect is to create absolute bar to white males being successful, policy is not
rational and justifiable.

The complainant had 19 years‟ experience as a magistrate and held the
degrees of B Juris, LLB and Master of Public Administration. He averred that
in the short listing of candidates, the Magistrate‟s Commission had unfairly
discriminated against him on the basis of race and gender. In support of that
allegation, he referred to the weighting attached to the criteria on the score
sheet.

The Court concluded that the complainant had been unfairly discriminated
against, and upheld the complaint.

MURRAY v MINISTER OF DEFENCE
[2006] 3 All SA 290 (C)

Labour law – Constructive dismissal – Onus of proof – Plaintiff required to
prove that he had no voluntary intention to resign, but that the employer must
have caused the resignation – Court must look at the employer‟s conduct as a
whole and determine whether its effect, judged reasonably and sensibly, was
such that the employee could not have been expected to put up with it. As the
plaintiff was a member of the South African National Defence Force, the
provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 did not apply to him. The
resolution of his labour dispute therefore had to be based on the common-law
principles of the contract of employment.

Examining the incidents of which the plaintiff based his complaints, the Court
found that the plaintiff did not allege that any of the said incidents caused the
continuing employment relationship to become intolerable thus leading him to
resign. The chronology of events which preceded plaintiff‟s resignation may
be divided into phases, these being the first preliminary investigation which
led to the holding of the First Court Martial; the second preliminary
investigation which led to the holding of the Second Court Martial.
Viewing the incidents objectively, the Court could not find that they were of
such a nature that the plaintiff‟s employment was rendered intolerable. It
therefore dismissed the claim with costs.

D & H PIPING SYTEMS (PTY) LTD v TRANS HEX GROUP LTD
[2006]3 All SA 309 (SCA)

Sale – of goods – Latent defects – Liability of manufacturers – When
manufacturer liable for consequential damages. In the High Court the
appellant alleged the respondent to be a „manufacturing seller‟ and, on the
basis that the aggregate and sand supplied to it by the respondents had been
latently defective, claimed payment by the respondent of its consequential
loss of R13 million.

Held, that, on the evidence the respondent had known at the relevant time
that the aggregate and sand supplied by it to the appellant would be used in
the manufacture of concrete pipes and a term to that effect had therefore
been incorporated into the contracts between them.

Held, further, that, on a proper construction of the authorities, a vendor who
sold goods of his own manufacture was liable for consequential loss caused
by a latent defect in the goods sold.
(Case also reported in S.A. Law Reports 2006(3)SA 593 SCA )

The appeal was accordingly upheld.

ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY v VERULAM MEDICENTRE (PTY) LTD
[2006] 3 All SA 325 (SCA)

Contract – Payment of interests – Applicability of in duplum rule – Rule not
applicable where not dealing with arrear interest.

Held, the sole issue for determination on appeal was whether the duplum rule
applied to the respondent‟s claim against the appellant.

The effect of the in duplum rule is that the interest due in respect of a debt
ceases to run when it reaches the amount of the unpaid capital sum. The rule
is based on public policy and is meant to protect debtors from exploitation by
creditors who could force them to pay unregulated charges. It cannot be
waived in advance or during the period of the loan. The rule is confined to
arrear interest alone.

On a proper interpretation of the contractual provision relating to interest, the
Court found the appellant‟s reliance on the in duplum rule to be without merit.
As there was no debt owing until the contract was cancelled, the present case
did not deal with arrear interest. It was also found that the interest agreed
upon by the parties was not interest in the ordinary sense but was a means of
formulating fair and proper restitution for what had been paid,.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.
PIETERSE v SHROSBREE: SHROSBREE NO v LOVE
[2006] 3 All SA 343 (SCA)

Insurance – Insolvency - Whether the trustee of an insolvent deceased‟s
estate is entitled to the proceeds of insurance policies for redistribution to
creditors of the deceased, in preference to the nominated beneficiaries –
Effect of section 63 of the Long Term Insurance Act 52 of 1998 on such
situation. After the death of the deceased, the first two respondents, as
nominated beneficiaries, accepted the benefits of the policy. A short time
thereafter, the deceased estate was sequestrated. The first two respondents
unsuccessfully sought a declarator that they were entitled to the proceeds of
the policy. Nominated beneficiaries are better off than creditors!! Never make
your estate a beneficiary!!

MINISTER OF EDUCATION v SYFRETS TRUST LTD
[2006] 3 All SA 373 (C)

Succession – Discriminatory provisions in will – Freedom of testation not an
unfettered right – Discriminatory provisions deleted from will. Trust and
trustee – Trust instrument – Variation of – Testamentary trust created for
purpose of „providing bursaries for deserving students with limited or no
means of either sex (but of European decent only)‟ – Trust later amended by
codicil to make „persons of Jewish decent (sic), and females of all
nationalities‟ ineligible to compete for bursaries – Application for order varying
trust conditions by deleting discriminatory provisions in will and codicil.

The late S, who died in 1921, had in 1920 execute a will in which it was
provided, that the residue of his estate should be held in trust and that after
the death of his wife, and in the event of both his sons dying without being
survived by lawful issue, should be applied for the purpose of forming a fund
(the trust).

Held, that it was the public policy of today – not of 1920 (when the will and
codicil were executed) – Which was decisive in the present application.

Held, further, that the condition limiting eligibility for the bursaries to
candidates of „European descent” constituted an instance of interdict
discrimination based on race or colour. The exclusion of Jews and women in
terms of the codicil, in turn, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of
gender and religion. Such discrimination, being based on some of the
prohibited grounds specified in s 9(3) of the Constitution, was therefore
presumed to be unfair „unless it is established that the discrimination is fair‟.
(Also reported in S.A. Law Reports 2006(4) SA 205 CPD )
    THE SOUTH AFRICAN CRIMINAL LAW REPORTS
                AUGUST 2006 (2)

S v WILLIAMS : S v PAPIER
2006 (2) SASV 101 KPD

Sentence – Imprisonment – Duration of – Non-parole period. In imposing
sentence, judicial officers cannot fix non-parole period in terms of Correctional
Services Act 111 f 1998 (as magistrate having done in two cases under
review) –If court wishing to fix non-parole period, having to do so in terms of s
276B of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Regarding the present cases, the
sentences imposed were fitting, but the purported ordering of non-parole
periods was set aside.

S v WALDECK
2006 (2) SACR 120 NCD

Evidence – Hearsay evidence. Court must exercise caution before admitting
hearsay evidence and must look for compelling justification to do so in
criminal cases. Having been convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years‟
imprisonment, the appellant appealed against his conviction. The impugned
evidence was that of the neighbour of the deceased, who testified that she
had been approached by the deceased who told her that the appellant had
assaulted her. The witness testified that she had seen bruises on the person
of the deceased. Further hearsay evidence was heard from the father of the
deceased to whom the deceased had been taken after the assault by the
appellant. Examining the magistrate‟s handling of the evidence, the present
Court found her judgment to be lacking in various respects.

In examining the hearsay evidence, the Court considered the purpose for
which the evidence was tendered and found that the object was the probative
value of the evidence. On a careful examination of the evidence, the Court
found the statements allegedly made by the deceased to the relevant
witnesses to be admissible.

This led to the question of whether the appellant had intended to murder the
deceased and whether the State had proved dolus directus or dolus
eventualis. Although not satisfied that the appellant had intended directly to
bring about the deceased‟s death or that he foresaw the possibility of the
deceased‟s death ensuing as a result of the assault, the Court was satisfied
that the appellant ought to have foreseen the death of the deceased resulting
from his conduct. The Court therefore decided that the appellant had
negligently caused the death of the deceased and was accordingly guilty of
culpable homicide.

(Also reported at [2006] 2 All SA 341 NCD)
S v CHARZEN AND ANOTHER
2006(2) SACR

Evidence – Adequacy of proof – Identification – „Unignorable‟ error in
description of attacker – Misdescription not explained – Absence of physical
evidence (fingerprints or retrieved stolen items) creating reasonable doubt –
Convictions set aside on appeal.

Evidence – Identification – Certainty beyond reasonable doubt that
identification is reliable – Generally recognised that evidence of identification
based upon a witness‟s recollection of a person‟s appearance can be
dangerously unreliable, and must be approached with caution. The key
question was the adequacy of the complainant‟s evidence identifying the
appellants as the two robbers who had shot him. The complainant had
referred to dreadlocks in his description of the first appellant. Such a feature
was absent from the first appellant at the trial, and no evidence that he had
ever had dreadlocks was to be found. The Court could not ignore the error,
and could not, in the absence of any other evidence against the appellants,
confirm the convictions. It upheld the appeal on that basis.

Also reported at [2006] 2 All SA 371SCA )

ABSA BANK LTD v FRASER AND ANOTHER
2006 (2) SACR 158 SCA

Search and seizure – Restraint order in terms of Prevention of Organised
Crime Act 121 of 1998 – Effect of on defendant‟s concurrent creditors –
Proper interpretation of s 33 (1) of Act not excluding concurrent creditors‟
interests in restrained property – Defendant‟s legal expenses having no
preference in respect of restrained property over proven concurrent claims.
Semble: Court expressly not deciding whether entitled to release restrained
property to meet concurrent claim before confiscation order made.

Also reported at [2006] 2 All SA 1 SCA .

S v JABANI
2006 (2) SACR 171 NCD

Indictment and charge – Splitting of charges – Accused convicted of
attempted murder and rape – Clear that accused‟s dominant intention was to
rape complainant even if it took extreme measures to achieve this end.

LOUW AND ANOTHER v MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY AND
OTHERS
2006 (2) SACR 178 TPD

Damages – Measure of – For unlawful arrest – Plaintiffs arrested without
warrant for alleged theft of fax machines – Detained overnight at police station
– No reasonable suspicion of crime having been committed – Police abusing
powers and acting with ulterior motives – Arrests unlawful – Factors taken into
account in determining quantum set out – Damages of R75 000 awarded to
each plaintiff.

NEW LEGISLATION

Since 27 April 1994, the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development has promoted 108 Bills, which have been enacted by
Parliament. In 1994 the Department promoted 5 Bills, 12 in 1995, 16 in 1996
as well as in 1997 and 1998, 3 in 1999 (election year), 7 in 2000, 10 in 2001,
14 in 2002, 8 in 2003 and 1 in 2004. This is an average of about 11 Bills per
year. Forty of these statutes are entirely new statutes, giving an indication of
the growth in our law since 1994, mainly in order to give effect to the new
constitutional dispensation !

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:261
posted:12/5/2009
language:English
pages:15
Description: STEERING COMMITTEE