IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) AND MOSELE FLORENCE TABANE RESPONDENT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) AND MOSELE FLORENCE TABANE RESPONDENT"

Transcription

1 CASE NO: 9/97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: MORRIS MAAKE APPELLANT AND MOSELE FLORENCE TABANE RESPONDENT CIVIL APPEAL ARISING FROM AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES MAFIKENG NKABINDE J DATE OF HEARING: 10 DECEMBER 1999 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3 FEBRUARY 2000 FOR THE APPELLANT: G L M BOKABA FOR THE RESPONDENT: H R FOURIE NKABINDE J: A. Introduction The plaintiff/respondent had sued the defendant/appellant in the magistrates court for the payment by the defendant of various amounts of damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff. For ease of reference and convenience I shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant.

2 The plaintiff claimed damages for: (a) seduction (claim I) in the sum of R plus interest and costs; (b) lying in expenses (claim II) in the sum of R8 500 plus interest and costs; (c) maintenance for the minor child (claim III) in the sum of R1 500 plus interest and costs; and (d) breach of promise to marry (claim IV) in the sum of R plus interest and costs. The first and fourth claims which are the subjects matter of this appeal were upheld by the court a quo. The second and third claims were dismissed. The trial magistrate awarded damages in the sum of R B. The pleadings and the issues It is only necessary for the purpose of this judgment to cite the averments in the particulars of claim which are the subject matter of the two claims. It is alleged in the plaintiff s particulars of claim with regard to claim I that: 4 On or about and during January 1992 and March 1992, the plaintiff, a major spinster was wrongfully and unlawfully seduced and carnally known by the defendant. 5 By reason of the aforesaid sexual intercourse by the Defendant, Plaintiff lost her virginity and got impregnated and thereby sustained injury to her good name, self esteem and reputation and impairment of marriage prospects as a result suffered damages in the amount of R for which the Defendant is by law liable to compensate.. In and during February 1993 the plaintiff filed and delivered a notice of amendment in terms of Rule 59 of the Bophuthatswana Magistrates Court Rules with a view to add claim IV to the particulars of claim. On or about 11 March 1993 the defendant, without objecting to the notice to amend, sought further

3 particulars in respect of all the claims including claim IV. On 31 March 1993 the plaintiff filed and delivered further particulars to the defendant s request for same. Without objecting to the said amendment the defendant pleaded to claims I, II, and III only. It is alleged in the amended particulars of claim that: 11.1 During March 1992, Defendant promised to conduct a civil marriage with Plaintiff after Plaintiff s delivery of their child During December 1992, Plaintiff gave birth to a baby boy, and despite the delivery of the child, Defendant has refused to marry the Plaintiff and has taken another woman into his house Defendant s refusal to marry and his taking of another woman into his house constitutes a repudiation of the promise to marry, which repudiation the plaintiff accepts By reason of the aforesaid repudiation Plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of R for which the Defendant is by law liable to compensate Despite lawful demand Defendant refuses to pay an amount of R The defendant in his plea (in respect of Claim I) admitted having known the plaintiff carnally but denied having seduced her. He further admitted that as a result of the sexual intercourse the plaintiff became pregnant but denied her loss of virginity, injury to her good name, self esteem and reputation, an impairment of marriage prospects and the quantum claimed. Manifest from the pleadings the defendant did not plead to claim IV. C. The facts The plaintiff testified that she is a lady teacher. During or about January 1992

4 the defendant proposed love to her which she did not readily accept because she was apprehensive that the relationship might not last. They befriended and visited each other and ultimately fell in love. The defendant made a marriage proposal to her when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him because she was not using contraceptives. The defendant then told her that she did not need to use contraceptives because he wanted to marry her and wanted to plan a child with her.. He subsequently repeated the promise to marry her when he introduced her to his spiritual healer. He introduced her to the spiritual healer as his prospective wife and thereafter they consulted the spiritual healer together on numerous occasions. The defendant further told her that his intention was not to hurt her feelings but to make here happy. As a result of the promise the plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the defendant and continued to indulge in sexual intercourse with him as they were planning to have a child. They spent several nights at the defendant s house where they indulged in sexual intercourse every night in January 1992, to make sure that she conceives. When the defendant was informed about the conception he, to her surprise, became unhappy. Two days after discussing the conception with him she visited the defendant at his house and caught him in the act with another woman. She testified that after this incident the defendant repeatedly told her that he no longer loved her and was not going to marry her because he is in love with another woman with whom he cohabits. The plaintiff s evidence with regard to the damages claimed, inter alia come to the following: Today I am an unmarried woman with an illegitimate child. This does not make me feel well. It affected my outlook in the community. I appear to be a woman who does not respect herself in the community. People around my area know my occupation. I am ashamed to tell my colleagues that the farther of the child is not

5 there.... As a result of impregnation and loss of virginity my good name, self esteem and reputation have been impaired. Usually... men do not like a woman with a child... I felt heart broken because he made an agreement that he is going to marry me and I had a child which I did not intend... People regard me and defendant in high esteem. Myself and defendant both have colleagues at work. We are both held in high esteem by our colleagues. Due to the defendant s action of not marrying me I felt hurt and that he had decreased my reputation.. Under cross examination the plaintiff testified that she was a virgin when the defendant seduced her. She explained that during the intercourse penetration was painful and was bleeding. The defendant admitted having had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff but denied having promised to marry her. He testified that the plaintiff was the seducer because she had invited him to her house and upon arrival he found her dressed in a manner a man could not resist. It is remarkable that the defendant however resisted the plaintiff. I may mention that this version was not even put to the plaintiff during cross examination. The defendant further testified that after this incident he visited the plaintiff regularly until the relationship started. He then had sexual intercourse with her. He could feel that it was not the first time she had sexual intercourse with a man because penetration was easy. He later testified that I did not figure whether she is a virgin... I usually saw her with men.. Under cross examination he testified that the plaintiff was not a virgin. He further explained that he terminated the relationship with the plaintiff because the plaintiff was older than him. D. The law and the facts As regards the claim for seduction, it is settled law that where the man has seduced the woman under a promise of marriage, she is entitled to claim damages for breach of promise and damages for seduction (See: Davel v Swanepoel 1954 (1) SA 383 A at 389; Bull v Taylor 1965 (4) SA 29 A). The woman must have lost her virginity as a result of the seduction by the man. In the words of Innes CJ, as he then was, in Bensimon v Barton 1919 AD the woman must have parted with her virtue at the seduction of a man. The presumption is that she fell as a result of the man s seductive efforts.

6 Mr Bokaba submitted before this court that the plaintiff was a seducer and that she was not a virgin. Accepting that to constitute seduction something akin to a leading astray must be present, it seems to me that the element is not lacking in the instant case. The record before this court discloses no grounds for suggesting that the plaintiff was at the relevant date a sexually precocious woman who actively encouraged the defendant to have intercourse with her. In my opinion the converse reflects the true position. The plaintiff requested that they should not indulge in sexual intercourse because she was not using contraceptives but the defendant suggested that they should do without contraceptives because they should plan a child and that he was going to marry her. She then succumbed to the blandishments of the defendant. Save for mere speculation, the defendant could not say whether or not the plaintiff was a virgin. Under cross examination he denied that the plaintiff was a virgin. I have no doubt that the defendant s denial of the plaintiff s virginity is totally unfounded. In my opinion the plaintiff has proved that she was seduced and is entitled to damages on that account. Mr Bokaba also argued that the action based on seduction is outdated and contrary to the provisions of s. 9 of The Constitution Act 108 of He however conceded that this point was not raised before the magistrate and that the said provisions could not apply retrospectively. In my opinion, the concession was well made. Whilst I share the view that a legal remedy for seduction is an anachronism particularly in the era of a Constitution based on equality, it is regrettable that the law with regard to this delictual claim still forms part of the South African law. As regards the claim for breach of promise, the repudiation by the man of the agreement to marry must be established. The onus of proving justification for breach is on the defendant who must set out sufficient particularity of the circumstances of the alleged justa causa in the pleadings. On the record before this court, the defendant did not plead to the claim for breach of promise. He however testified that he never promised the plaintiff anything and did not make any plan with her. He further said that the plaintiff told him that she wanted to have a baby and was not interested in marriage. I need say nothing further about his denials because quite apart from the fact that he did not plead to claim IV,

7 his version in this regard was not put to the plaintiff under cross examination. In the premises I find it proved on a balance of probabilities that there was an express agreement to marry after the child was born. E. The quantum of damages I turn to the thorny question of the amount of damages payable to the plaintiff for seduction and breach of promise. Mr Bokaba submitted that the damages awarded were too excessive particularly because the plaintiff was an older woman. He suggested a global amount in the sum of R for both claims. On the other hand Ms Fourie submitted, correctly in my view, that although the claims are intertwined and overlapping, they are distinct claims and should therefore be treated separately. Ms Fourie submitted further that whilst she conceded that the magistrate did not properly exercise her discretion in the assessment of damages, this court should only interfere with the quantum only if the figure differs substantially from the figure awarded. She referred this court to the views, which I share, expressed by the court in Sandler v Wholesale Coal Suppliers Ltd 1941 AD 194, that :... a Court of Appeal should not interfere unless there is some striking disparity between its estimate of the damages and that of the trial court, and further unless there is some unusual degree of certainty in its mind that the estimate of the trial court is wrong...if the figure arrived at, considered from all aspects, differs substantially from the figure awarded, the Court of Appeal must give effect to it.. (At 200)

8 Ms Fourie submitted further that the argument that the plaintiff is entitled to lesser amount of damages because she was older is unfounded. She argued that the plaintiff was a reputable and dignified lady teacher who was respected not only in the community where she lived but also at the school where she was teaching. But a young girl, who had not yet gone any far with her career would not have much to loose. I share the same view. I fully agree with Ms Fourie that the trial magistrate has not exercised her discretion properly in assessing the quantum in the two claims. It follows from the findings above that the plaintiff is entitled to damages both from seduction and breach of promise. With the information at this court s disposal, I am of the view that this court is in as good a position as the trial court to assess these damages failing which this Court will, in the words of Watermeyer JA in Sandler s case, supra, be deferring to the judgment of the trial magistrate and not carrying out its function as a Court of Appeal by exercising its own judgment upon a matter which is before it on appeal. (At 200). In any event, no useful purpose will, in my view, be served by referring the matter back to the Court aquo to assess the damages afresh. I now turn to the general damages caused by the seduction. The onus to prove quantum rests on the plaintiff. This is a matter within the discretion of the court. I must mention however that it is difficult to determine quantum with any degree of precision. In considering what might be a suitable award for the plaintiff regard must be had to: (a) the social standing of the plaintiff; (b) the extent to which the feelings of the plaintiff have been wounded; (c) the awards in comparable cases, only as guidelines ; (d) the devaluation in the value of money, and (e) the general behaviour of the defendant. The plaintiff has testified that she was a spinster and lady teacher who was

9 respected not only at school but also in the community where she lived. She was persuaded to surrender her virginity by a promise that was not kept but now finds herself not only deflowered but also saddled with a child as a result. The injurious element of this conduct is, in my view, substantially aggravated by the defendant s persistent denial that she was virgin at the time he seduced her and his scurrilous and unfounded accusation that she was the seducer. The defendant has admitted that her prospects of getting married has diminished. In a comparable case of M NO v M 1991 (A) SA 587 at 602 J the plaintiff, a girl aged 16 years was awarded a global amount of R for seduction and breach of promise. The award in money in that year is not an award in money today. Therefore, in making comparison I have taken into account the decline in the value of money (Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey 1984 (1) SA 98 (AD), and of course, the particular circumstances of each case. It is clear from the defendant s evidence that when he proposed love from the plaintiff he did so with a wicked heart solely to appease his selfish ends because he testified that he did not love her but was only attracted to her. This heartless and callous attitude should attract censure in the form of damages. In considering the contractual aspect of the breach of promise, regard must be had, inter alia, to : (a) the monetary loss which the plaintiff has sustained; (b) the financial position of the defendant, and (c) her social standing and the extend to which her feelings have been wounded. Whilst it is impossible to quantify the loss accurately, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff has, as a result of the breach, lost the right of support which would have followed from a legally binding marriage. It does not appear however that she would have suffered substantial monetary loss by losing an opportunity of

10 marrying a man in the position of the defendant. The manner in which the defendant repudiated the contract must also be taken into account. The injuria was exacerbated by the fact that after the child was conceived, the defendant was caught in the act with another woman. It is little wonder that the plaintiff was left with a lasting feeling of hurt. Save that the defendant was a teacher, there is no evidence before this court regarding his financial circumstances. I approach this matter from the point that the defendant is not a man of any substantial financial means. The defendant and the plaintiff are both respectable members of the community in which they live. Taking all the circumstance into consideration, the amounts awarded for both seduction and breach of promise were in my judgment excessive and should be reduced to R in respect of the seduction claim and to R in respect of the claim for breach of promise claim. F. The Costs Turning to the question of costs, Mr Bokaba submitted that in the event of the defendant being partially successful, irrespective of the extent of success, the defendant must be awarded the costs because the plaintiff has already been awarded costs on two previous occasions when the case was postponed. Ms Fourie argued that the plaintiff should be awarded costs occasioned by the postponement on 23 October 1999 when the costs were reserved. It appears from the endorsement on the court file that the matter was further postponed because the magistrate had not furnished proper reasons for her judgment. The postponement was therefore not at the instance of the plaintiff. As far as the costs of the hearing of appeal are concerned, it is trite law that all costs, unless expressly enacted, are in the discretion of the judge. The general rule with regard to costs is that in the absence of some statutory provisions or other just and sufficient reason to the contrary, a successful party is in law entitled as of right to taxed costs. Sometimes a plaintiff, though successful, is not entitled in its entirety to the order claimed. The fact that the defendant has succeeded in reducing the amount claimed by the plaintiff does not alter the fact that the plaintiff is the successful party in considering the question of costs, as

11 she had come to court in order to succeed to the extent she did ( Giuliani v Diesel Pump Injector Services (Pty) Ltd 1966 (3) SA 451; Erasmus v Davis 1969 (2) SA 1 (A)). In the instant case the plaintiff has been substantially successful because had she not come to Court, she could not have recovered the amounts awarded. Even though she is awarded less that what she had claimed, she has achieved substantial success because she has proved substantial rights. In my opinion, there should be no deviation from the rule that normally costs follow the event. I find therefore that the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the appeal. G. The order of court In the light of the aforegoing, the judgment of the court aquo is altered to read as follows: (1) the appeal on the merits is dismissed. (2) the plaintiff is awarded damages in the sum of R in respect of the seduction claim and R in respect of the claim for breach of promise. (3) Each party is to pay his/her costs occasioned by the postponement on 23 October (4) The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of appeal. NKABINDE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT I agree KHUMALO J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

12 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT

CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1850/2010 In the matter between: CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA Plaintiff And THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) ADELAIDE DEBORAH MOLOSIWA DALE MARUPING MOLOSIWA J U D G M E N T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) ADELAIDE DEBORAH MOLOSIWA DALE MARUPING MOLOSIWA J U D G M E N T IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO: 153\03 ADELAIDE DEBORAH MOLOSIWA PLAINTIFF and DALE MARUPING MOLOSIWA DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T LEEUW

More information

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the case of:- Case Nr: 2826/2012 MARIA ELIZABETH HANGER Plaintiff/Respondent and JOE REGAL 1 st Defendant / 1 st Applicant PETRA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 2589/2012 In the matter between: MLINDELI DAVID SEPTEMBER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 2589/2012 In the matter between: MLINDELI DAVID SEPTEMBER SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE

More information

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009 Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OF SOUTH AFRICA APPEAL REPORTABLE Case Number : 010 / 2002 In the matter between ROY SELWYN COHEN Appellant and BRENDA COHEN (born Coleman) Respondent Composition

More information

N[...] E[...] N[...] obo T[...]...PLAINTIFF DR E M SEKWABE...1 ST DEFENDANT. THE MEDICAL MANAGER OF LIFE ST. DOMINICS...2 nd DEFENDANT JUDGMENT

N[...] E[...] N[...] obo T[...]...PLAINTIFF DR E M SEKWABE...1 ST DEFENDANT. THE MEDICAL MANAGER OF LIFE ST. DOMINICS...2 nd DEFENDANT JUDGMENT SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION

More information

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the

More information

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA JUDGMENT SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL

More information

1] The applicant on 30 May 2002 applied for an order. winding up the respondent provisionally on the basis. that it is unable to pay its debts.

1] The applicant on 30 May 2002 applied for an order. winding up the respondent provisionally on the basis. that it is unable to pay its debts. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 4634/02 In the matter between: COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD Applicant And TECHNOBURN (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA APPEAL NO. AR 140/2006 In the matter between: MQONDENI MBONGENI NGEMA

IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA APPEAL NO. AR 140/2006 In the matter between: MQONDENI MBONGENI NGEMA 1 IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA APPEAL NO. AR 140/2006 In the matter between: MQONDENI MBONGENI NGEMA Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT GORVEN J [1]The

More information

independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00479/17] [MAY 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00479/17] [MAY 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00479/17] [MAY 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all material information from Police

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 41/99 JÜRGEN HARKSEN Appellant versus THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: CAPE OF GOOD

More information

THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPEAL JUDGMENT

THE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPEAL JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 107/2016 Date Heard: 10 March 2017 Date Delivered: 16 March 2017 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF SAFETY

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN

More information

JOHANNES WILLEM DU TOIT ACCUSED NO 1 GIDEON JOHANNES THIART ACCUSED NO 2 MERCIA VAN DEVENTER ACCUSED NO 3

JOHANNES WILLEM DU TOIT ACCUSED NO 1 GIDEON JOHANNES THIART ACCUSED NO 2 MERCIA VAN DEVENTER ACCUSED NO 3 Reportable YES / NO Circulate to Judges YES / NO Circulate to MagistratesYES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION: DE AAR CIRCUIT] JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: KS 8/2014 THE STATE AND

More information

[1] This is an action arising from injuries the plaintiff sustained on 17 January 2013 in Bloemfontein in a motor vehicle collision.

[1] This is an action arising from injuries the plaintiff sustained on 17 January 2013 in Bloemfontein in a motor vehicle collision. SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION,

More information

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL Case No 70/95 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between SA METAL & MACHINERY CO (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL WORKS (PTY) LTD NATIONAL METAL (PTY)

More information

JUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.

JUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID PENN. and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID PENN. and EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CLAIM NO.: BVIHCV2013/0376 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE DAVID PENN Claimant and PLATINUM INVESTORS LIMITED Defendant Before: Eddy Ventose

More information

H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J

H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 201/2007 ROBIN GERALDINE GRIESEL and LENRé LIEBENBERG CORAM: H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J JUDGMENT:

More information

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 23 OF 1957

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 23 OF 1957 Page 1 of 9 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 23 OF 1957 (Previous short title, 'Immorality Act', substituted by s. 10 of Act 2 of 1988 ) [ASSENTED TO 3 APRIL 1957] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 12 APRIL 1957] (English text

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB-066-06 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE APPELLANT RESPONDENT Mr. Attorney P.A. Kgalemang for the Appellant

More information

REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: 751/2005 In the matter between:- REUBEN ITUMELENG TODI Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT First Defendant OF NORTH WEST RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 347/2015 In the matter between: MZWANELE LUBANDO APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Lubando v The State (347/2015)

More information

ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD

ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD 1 ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATANDA-MOYO J HARARE, 5 February 2018 & 28 March 2018 Opposed

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No 195/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: GUARDIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and MATTHEW STEPHEN CHARLES SEARLE N O Respondent CORAM: VIVIER, HOWIE,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between: JUDGMENT Civil Case 1876/2010 KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI Plaintiff And WEBSTER LUKHELE Defendant Neutral citation: Khanyisile Judith Dlamini vs Webster

More information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA. High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Civil Case 788 of 2000 E. R. O...PLAINTIFF V E R S U S

REPUBLIC OF KENYA. High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Civil Case 788 of 2000 E. R. O...PLAINTIFF V E R S U S REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Civil Case 788 of 2000 E. R. O...PLAINTIFF V E R S U S BOARD OF TRUSTEES, FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF KENYA...DEFENDANTS J U D G M E N T

More information

HORNER INVESTMENTS CC GENERAL PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS CC

HORNER INVESTMENTS CC GENERAL PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS CC 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) Case No.3433/12 Dates heard: 12-15/11/13 (trial); 24 and 29/1/14 (heads of argument re amendment) Date delivered: 27/2/14 Not reportable

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG 1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 11224/11 In the matter between: STEVEN McGREGOR APPLICANT and THE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE Ms B. ASMAL N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07. In the matter between: and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07. In the matter between: and IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07 In the matter between: NTOMBENKOSI HLOMZA Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY THE STATION COMMISSIONER,

More information

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN Daniel #2 ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE Gr. Termination 7/29/96 ARBITRATOR: WILLIAM P. DANIEL FACTS The claimant worked as a Switch

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION CA NO. 37/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION THE STATE vs SEBELE JOHANNES SECHELE AND ANOTHER REVIEW PAKO AJ INTRODUCTION This case came before me on automatic review.

More information

TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff. BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant J U D G M E N T

TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff. BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2007/16441 DATE: 05/11/2010 In the matter between: TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff and BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

6. The salient facts of this matter are as follows: (i) The plaintiff was employed by a tenant at the Menlyn mall, owned by the defendant.

6. The salient facts of this matter are as follows: (i) The plaintiff was employed by a tenant at the Menlyn mall, owned by the defendant. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA Case number 35421/2009 YVONNE MAUD NIEMAND Plaintiff and OLD MUTUAL INVESTMENT GROUP PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY)

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 44981/2013 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... SIGNATURE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO: RCUMB 36/05. In the matter between. And APPEAL JUDGMENT PAKADE J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO: RCUMB 36/05. In the matter between. And APPEAL JUDGMENT PAKADE J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO: RCUMB 36/05 In the matter between THE STATE APPELLANT And MARIO QUINTON PETERS RESPONDENT APPEAL JUDGMENT PAKADE J.: [1] This

More information

JUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017

JUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First

More information

In the HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA) CASE NO /08

In the HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA) CASE NO /08 57560/08 1 JUDGMENT In the HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT - PRETORIA) CASE NO. 57560/08, DE.LETH WHiCHEYL.fi IS NOT APruCAUU* I (1) REPORTABLE: YESflWtST' (2) O r INTERES1 ro OTHER

More information

EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll

EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence

More information

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD 1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE

More information

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE CIVIL APPEAL NO.0028 OF (From Kabale Civil Suit No.0004 of 2003

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE CIVIL APPEAL NO.0028 OF (From Kabale Civil Suit No.0004 of 2003 REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KABALE CIVIL APPEAL NO.0028 OF 2006 (From Kabale Civil Suit No.0004 of 2003 NARIS TUMWESIGYE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT

More information

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 OFFENCES

More information

SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1975) (3) (Translation) 590. MINISTER OF POLICE v. EWELS.

SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1975) (3) (Translation) 590. MINISTER OF POLICE v. EWELS. 590-594 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1975) (3) 590 MINISTER OF POLICE v. EWELS. ( A ppellate D iv isio n.) 1975. March 17; May 23. R u m pff, C.J., Ja n se n, J.A., T rollep, J.A., M u ller, J.A. a n d V

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG. t/1{!n::u;~ t_ JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG. t/1{!n::u;~ t_ JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG ( 1) REPORT ABLE: 'f;e;:-/ NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YEfNO (3) REVISED. f ;l d.?jotjao.1 b t/1{!n::u;~

More information

known as plot number 13 Glynham, Masvingo ( the property ). It formed part of the estate

known as plot number 13 Glynham, Masvingo ( the property ). It formed part of the estate 1 DISTRIBUTABLE (29) ALFRED MUCHINI v (1) ELIZABETH MARY ADAMS (2) SHEPHERD MAKONYERE N.O (3) ESTATE LATE ALVIN ROY ADAMS (4) REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (5) MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI

More information

THORNY ISSUES REGARDING THE ADMISSABILITY AND SCOPE OF SURREBUTTAL REPORTS

THORNY ISSUES REGARDING THE ADMISSABILITY AND SCOPE OF SURREBUTTAL REPORTS THORNY ISSUES REGARDING THE ADMISSABILITY AND SCOPE OF SURREBUTTAL REPORTS By Barbara E. Cotton and Walter Kubitz 1 Thorny issues seem to have arisen in Alberta jurisprudence regarding the admissibility

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO. 193/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: versus JUDGMENT MAGEZA AJ:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO. 193/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: versus JUDGMENT MAGEZA AJ: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. EASTERN CAPE DIVISION GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO. 193/2010 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: TOMMY LAMONT TOMMY S ELECTRICAL CC FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT versus ROCKLANDS POULTRY

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 4485/2016

More information

13 September :... DATE

13 September :... DATE SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) JUDGMENT Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: 1 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) Case No: 183/2013 HEARD ON: 26/08/2014 DELIVERED:

More information

The Honorable Michael R Erwin Judge Presiding

The Honorable Michael R Erwin Judge Presiding NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 KA 1447 STATE OF LOUISIANA a VERSUS SHEDDRICK DEON PATIN Judgment Rendered March 25 2011 Appealed from the 19th Judicial

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 17, 2000 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NICHOLAS ROBERTS BROWN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 7624 Richard

More information

THANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE NZIMENI MAMBILA RULING IN TERMS OF RULE 39 (11)

THANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE NZIMENI MAMBILA RULING IN TERMS OF RULE 39 (11) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA Case no. 2889/2016 Date heard: 13/06/18 Date delivered: 31/07/18 Reportable In the matter between: THANDEKILE NELSON SABISA LAWRENCE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: MANYE RICHARD MOROKA and ZIMBALI COUNTRY CLUB JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: AR207/2016 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

More information

CUSTOMARY RECONCILIATION IN SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES IN VANUATU

CUSTOMARY RECONCILIATION IN SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES IN VANUATU CUSTOMARY RECONCILIATION IN SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES IN VANUATU ARTHI BANDHANA SWAMY This paper seeks to explore how legal recognition of customary reconciliation can deliver justice to victims of

More information

JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an appeal against a decision by the Magistrate for the district

JUDGEMENT. [1] This is an appeal against a decision by the Magistrate for the district SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to

More information

GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered

GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered IN THE In the matter between GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 3823/09 ti JSJzoto THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Excipient and KOVAC INVESTMENTS 289 (PTY)

More information

EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI [2017] NZDC 3345

EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI [2017] NZDC 3345 EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI-2016-063-001647 [2017] NZDC 3345 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v MANU HENARE Defendant Hearing:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date heard: 2005 11 25 Date delivered: 2005 12 02 Case no:

More information

BETWEEN THE STATE RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN

BETWEEN THE STATE RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Criminal Number S 045 /06 BETWEEN THE STATE V RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN Before Boodoosingh J. Mr A. Stroude and Ms A. Mohammed for The State

More information

Re: Dr Jonathan Richard Ashton v GMC [2013] EWHC 943 Admin

Re: Dr Jonathan Richard Ashton v GMC [2013] EWHC 943 Admin Appeals Circular A11/13 14 06 2013 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Investigation Committee Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations

More information

[1] In this case, the defendant applied for absolution from the

[1] In this case, the defendant applied for absolution from the IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 22/05/2009 CASE NO: 12677/08 REPORTABLE In the matter between: TSOANYANE: MPHO PLAINTIFF And UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA DEFENDANT

More information

(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <'

(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <' CASE N0:768/2013 DELETE WHJCHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: vpo (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y(ino (3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/12763 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED

More information

MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT. [1] In accordance to an agreement which was reached between the

MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT. [1] In accordance to an agreement which was reached between the Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Case No: 3509/2012 Date Heard: 15/08/2016 Date Delivered: 1/09/2016 ANDILE SILATHA Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015 In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND ANOTHER PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG J U D G M E N T

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. 8774/09 In the matter between: THULANI SIFISO MAZIBUKO AMBROSE SIMPHIWE CEBEKHULU FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG NORTH, PRETORIA) ZO/C In the matter between: DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG NORTH, PRETORIA) ZO/C In the matter between: DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG NORTH, PRETORIA) ZO/C In the matter between: CASE NO: 2784/2006 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:(?ES^: JOHANNA WILSON (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President Senior Immigration Judge Roberts. Between. and ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, CHENNAI

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President Senior Immigration Judge Roberts. Between. and ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, CHENNAI Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) SD (paragraph 320(11): Forgery) India [2010] UKUT 276 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

The plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Juma Musjid Trust, bearing the reference

The plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Juma Musjid Trust, bearing the reference IN HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 7155/2011 AHMED ASRUFF ESSAY, N.O. ABOOBAKER JOOSAB NOOR MAHOMED, N.O. AHMED VALLY MAHOMED, N.O. HAROUN MAHOMED GANIE, N.O. MAHOMED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED Case number: 06771/2015..... In the matter between: MBATHA

More information

and MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE

and MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE Not reportable In the High Court of South Africa (South Eastern Cape Local Division) (Port Elizabeth High Court) Case No 2356/2006 Delivered: In the matter between PETER FRANCE N.O. HILLARY BARRIS N.O.

More information

LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976

LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976 MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50 Act 52 of 1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 20.. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 2 Chap. 45:50 Married Persons Note on Subsidiary Legislation

More information

CASE NO. 495/96. In the matter between AND SMALBERGER, NIENABER, SCHUTZ, SCOTT. and ZULMAN JJA HEARD: 16 SEPTEMBER 1997 DELIVERED: 26 SEPTEMBER 1997

CASE NO. 495/96. In the matter between AND SMALBERGER, NIENABER, SCHUTZ, SCOTT. and ZULMAN JJA HEARD: 16 SEPTEMBER 1997 DELIVERED: 26 SEPTEMBER 1997 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 495/96 In the matter between EDUARDO FERNANDES BRAZ APPELLANT AND REFINO DA SILVA AFONSO FIRST RESPONDENT AND MANUEL JOSE

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 414/13 In the matter between: Louis VOLSCHENK Applicant and PRAGMA AFRICA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. WELTMANS CUSTOM OFFICE FURNITURE Appellant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. WELTMANS CUSTOM OFFICE FURNITURE Appellant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: WELTMANS CUSTOM OFFICE FURNITURE Appellant (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and WHISTLERS CC Respondent CORAM : HEFER, NIENABER, SCHUTZ,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Meghalaya:Manipur: Tripura:Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Meghalaya:Manipur: Tripura:Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Meghalaya:Manipur: Tripura:Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) (AIZAWL BENCH) CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.4 of 2011(J) Sh.Krosnunnapara -Vs- State

More information

L G ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD. Urgent application to enforce restraint of trade. Matter is not urgent. JUDGMENT

L G ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD. Urgent application to enforce restraint of trade. Matter is not urgent. JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case number: J 2330/2016 In the matter between: L G ELECTRONICS (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATHAN NEYT IMPERIAL AIR CONDITIONING (PTY) LTD First

More information

GALEHETE MARRIAM MALOPE (Born SERANYANE) MATLHOMOLA STEPHEN MALOPE

GALEHETE MARRIAM MALOPE (Born SERANYANE) MATLHOMOLA STEPHEN MALOPE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1669/07 In the matter between:- GALEHETE MARRIAM MALOPE (Born SERANYANE) Plaintiff and MATLHOMOLA STEPHEN MALOPE Defendant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) In the matter between: NANDIPHA ELTER JACK CASE NO.: 1355/2013 Plaintiff And ANDILE BALENI NS NOMBAMBELA INCORPORATED First Defendant

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2004 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPELLANT AND WAYNE HERRERA RESPONDENT BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley - President The Hon.

More information

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A

MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO: 2014/14425

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO: 2014/14425 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO: 2014/14425 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED

More information

Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983)

Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) This court granted the employee's petition for review limiting the issue on review to whether the clause in the employment contract stipulating

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 536/2016 In the matter between: RIVERSDALE MINING LIMITED APPELLANT and JOHANNES JURGENS DU PLESSIS CHRISTO M ELOFF SC FIRST RESPONDENT

More information

JUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the

JUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever

More information

PVL1501 Case summaries: 2014 Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp 1962 (3) SA 954 (O)

PVL1501 Case summaries: 2014 Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp 1962 (3) SA 954 (O) PVL1501 Case summaries: 2014 Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp 1962 (3) SA 954 (O) The facts of the case are as follows: The testator left the residue of his estate to his daughter and to the first generation

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 498/2017 In the matter between Reportable RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY RESPONDENT

More information

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 18783/2011 MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent and BROADWAY DVD CITY

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KWADUKUZA MUNICIPALITY. DEOSHINEE GOVENDER Respondent J U D G M E N T

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KWADUKUZA MUNICIPALITY. DEOSHINEE GOVENDER Respondent J U D G M E N T IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO : 13941/2010 KWADUKUZA MUNICIPALITY Applicant vs DEOSHINEE GOVENDER Respondent J U D G M E N T K PILLAY J

More information