IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE STATE VERSUS LIONEL HENRY PAUL WILLIAMS REVIEW JUDGMENT
|
|
- Mitchell Todd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE Vredenburg Case No : 1301/2003 High Court Ref No : Magistrate s Serial No : 26/2004 THE STATE VERSUS LIONEL HENRY PAUL WILLIAMS REVIEW JUDGMENT ERASMUS, J: [1] This matter comes on review ostensibly in terms of Section 173 of Act 108 of 1996 (The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa), although it would seem that reliance has also been placed on Section 24(1)(d) of Act 59 of 1959 (the Supreme Court Act). The matter has been referred by the Magistrate in the Court a quo (the Vredenburg Magistrate's court) in the following circumstances.
2 2 [2] On 3 March 2004 the accused was charged with being in possession of an unlicensed weapon in contravention of the provisions of Section 2, read in conjunction with Sections 1, 39(2) & 40 of Act 75 of 1969 (the Arms and Ammunition Act) and of discharging a weapon in a public place in contravention of the provision of Sections 39(2)(d) & 39(3) of that Act. The alleged offences were committed on 30 June In addition, the accused was charged with housebreaking with intent to steal and to commit robbery on 24 December [3] The accused pleaded not guilty to all three charges, and at the close of the State's case the accused's attorney successfully applied for a discharge in terms of Section 174 of Act No 51 of 1977 (the Criminal Procedure Act) on the basis that the State had failed to prove all the elements of the crime, more specifically that the object concerned was indeed a weapon in terms of the Act. [4] In reaching his conclusion, the Magistrate found that the State
3 3 had erroneously relied on the definition of a weapon as contained in Section 1 of Act 75 of Section 1 of Act 75 of 1969 had, however, been repealed by Section 1 of Act 60 of 2000 (the Firearms Control Act) with effect from 1 June 2001, and it was thus the requirements contained in this Act (Act 60/2000) that had to be proven. [5] The evidence submitted in proof of the allegation that the object in question constituted a firearm was contained in Exhibit "A", an affidavit of Sergeant Felicia Theresa St. Clair deposed to in terms of Section 212(4)(a) and 212(8)(a) of Act 51 of The pertinent section of her affidavit confirmed that the object in question was, inter alia, "capable of discharging ammunition self loading but not capable of discharging more than one shot with a single depression of the trigger designed to discharge centre fire ammunition." [6] In considering the evidence, the Magistrate found that the State had failed to prove that a bullet or projectile could be propelled at a muzzle energy exceeding 8 joules, and had thus failed to prove all
4 4 the necessary elements of the offence. [7] In coming to this conclusion, the Magistrate relied on the interpretive guidelines laid down in S v F (1999 (1) SASV 571 (K)) where Albertus AJ concluded at p578 B D: " that the insertion of the conjunction 'or' between paras (d) and (e) and not between paras (a), (b) and (c) of the said subsection, makes it clear that the Legislature intended that the requirements set forth in paras (a), (b) and (c) must co exist with each other " Against this background, the Magistrate held that the factual ingredients contained in all the sub paragraphs of Section 1 of Act 60 of 2000 had to be proven. [8] Subsequent to reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate doubted the correctness of his decision and in consequence of research conducted post factum, concluded that his finding was indeed incorrect. As the magistrate is functus officio, he is correctly unable to correct the mistake (See S v van As 1989 (3) SA 881 (W) at 884 and Sefatsa & Others v Attorney General, Transvaal, & Another 1989 (1) SA 821 (A) at 835A C) and the matter was submitted for special
5 5 review. For this purpose the Magistrate has set forth his decisions on the question of law and his findings of fact in so far as they are material to the question of law, together with his post factum finding of law. [9] The latter findings are stated as follows: Although Section 1 of Act 60 of 2000 repeals Section 1 of Act 75 of 1969 with effect from 1 June 2001, Section 153 of Act 60 of 2000 (which repeals the whole of Act 75 of 1969) has not yet taken effect. Accordingly in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of Act 33 of 1957 (the Interpretation Act), Section 1 of Act 75 of 1969 has also not been repealed. As a consequence, the State was entitled to rely on the definition of an "arm" as contained in the old Act, and the court had thus granted discharge on the basis of incorrectly rejecting the admissible and competent evidence contained in Exhibit "A". [10] His question of law is formulated as follows: The repealing legislation is fundamentally flawed and as a consequence either the original definition of an "arm" as contained in the old Act is applicable, or alternatively both the definitions contained in the old act and new act are now in force, which leads to the
6 6 legislative intention being frustrated and gives rise to an absurdity. [11] In considering the merits of the finding, two questions fall to be decided. The first is whether a mistake has been made, and if so whether the mistake is one of law or fact and the second is whether the matter is in fact reviewable? For the purposes of this judgment, it is not necessary to consider the second or third charges as the evidentiary requirements will mutatis mutandis apply to the second charge and the Magistrate's finding in respect of the third charge appears to me to be correct. [12] An essential element of the alleged crime which the State must prove is the possession of an "arm". In terms of the 1969 Act, the word "arm", subject to certain special exclusions and inclusions, means any "firearm". "Firearm" is not defined in the old act and accordingly has to be construed in its ordinary sense (See S V Shezi 1980 (4) SA 494 (N) at 495D) which it has been held means that it is a weapon capable of discharging or propelling missiles with enough force or velocity for it to be used for
7 7 offensive or defensive purposes. (See S v Hlongwa 1990(2) SACR 262 (N) at 263G) With effect from I June 2001, the term "firearm" is now defined, and although "arm" is no longer defined, having regard to the old definition it is clear that the legislative intention was to interpret "arm" to still mean a "firearm", but as now defined in the new act. Such a construction is supported by the fact that in terms of the transitional provisions, the new act specifies in Section 6 of Schedule 1 that any person deemed to be unfit to possess an arm under the old act, will be deemed to be unfit to possess a firearm in terms of the new act. [13] This being so, the elements required to be proven are those contained in the definition clause of a " firearm" in the new act. In my view the Magistrate was thus correct in relying on this definition, but erred in interpreting its provisions. [14] In the English text, which is the signed text, a firearm is defined as meaning "any
8 8 (a) device manufactured or designed to propel a bullet or projectile through a barrel or cylinder by means of burning propellant, at a muzzle energy exceeding 8 joules (6 ft lbs); (b) device manufactured or designed to discharge rim fire, centre fire or pin fire ammunition; (c) device which is not at the time capable of discharging any bullet or projectile, but which can be readily altered to be a firearm within the meaning of paragraph (a) or (b); (d) device manufactured to discharge a bullet or any other projectile of a calibre of 5.6 mm (.22 calibre) or higher at a muzzle energy of more than 8 joules (6 ft lbs), by means of compressed gas and not by means of burning propellant; or (e) barrel, frame or receiver of a device referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d), but does not include any device contemplated in section 5."
9 9 [15] Of significance is the word "any". This word is not defined in the Act, and although it has been construed as a word of 'wide and unqualified generality', it may be restricted by the subject matter or the context. (See R v Hugo 1926 AD 268 at 271) [16] The meaning of the term any as contained in the Act must therefore be determined with reference to its plain and ordinary meaning with appropriate regard to its context. Any is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in the singular as no matter which, or what", and in the plural as "no matter which, or what kind or how many " [17] The legislature therefore provided that any one of the devices enunciated or a barrel, frame or receiver of any one of those devices would constitute a firearm. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that any other interpretation is selfcontradictory, in that it ostensibly requires the device simultaneously to be both capable of performing certain functions
10 10 and of not being capable, but of being readily alterable to perform such functions. [18] It appears to me that in relying on S v F (supra) the Magistrate overlooked the significance of the inclusion of the word "any" in Section 1 of Act 60 of 2000, which word does not appear in Section 158(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the section under consideration in S v F). Based on this mistaken interpretation of law, the Magistrate found that the State had failed to prove the charge. [19] The next question thus arises, namely, does this error give grounds for review in our law either in terms of an inherent jurisdiction or in terms of statutory review powers conferred upon this court? [20] The statutory grounds for review are found in the Criminal Procedure Act (Act 51 of 1977) and the Supreme Court Act (Act 59 of 1959). It is clear that neither the automatic review
11 11 provisions contained in Section 302 nor the special review provisions under Section 304 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act apply to the present situation in that the accused was legally represented (See S v Klaase 1998 (1) SACR 317 (C)) and no sentence was passed (See S v Mametja 1979 (1) SA 767 (T) at 768). Are the proceedings nonetheless reviewable in terms of Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act? [21] Broadly speaking, this section enables proceedings in inferior courts in respect of which there is a complaint against the method of the proceedings, as opposed to the result, to be brought before a higher court. In the latter instance, the correct remedy is by way of appeal. (See Johannesburg Consolidated Investments v Johannesburg Town Council 1903 TS 111 at 114 and Bester v Easigas (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 30 (C) at 43B) [22] The relevant section reads: "24 Grounds of review of proceedings of inferior courts
12 12 (1) The grounds upon which the proceedings of any inferior court may be brought under review before a provincial division, or before a local division having review jurisdiction, are (a) absence of jurisdiction on the part of the court; (b) interest in the cause, bias, malice or the commission of an offence referred to in Part 1 to 4, or section 17, 20 or 21 (in so far as it relates to the aforementioned offences) of Chapter 2 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004, on the part of the presiding judicial officer; (c) gross irregularity in the proceedings; and (d) the admission of inadmissible or incompetent evidence or the rejection of admissible or competent evidence. (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of any other law relating to the review of proceedings in inferior courts." [23] In the present case the review has been requested by the
13 13 Magistrate. This creates a procedural problem in that Section 24, read in conjunction with Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court, clearly contemplates a review brought before the High Court by one of the parties to the proceedings sought to be reviewed. (See Narodien v Andrews 2002 (3) SA 500 (C) at 506D E) [24] In addition, Section 24(d) upon which the Magistrate specifically relies, requires that there must have been prejudice, actual or probable, failing which any review, or where applicable, appeal would be merely academic, and thus impermissible. (See Mendes and Another v Kitching NO and Another 1995 (2) SACR 634 (E) at 644D E) Whilst there can be no prejudice to either the accused or the State in instances of acquittal (See the unreported case of Hubbard v Regional Magistrate, Cape Town CPD 22 March 1984) prejudice can include prejudice to the prosecution and will arise where the prosecution is prevented from prosecuting. In the present case the prosecution was not so barred.
14 14 [25] In invoking the provisions of Section 24(d) the Magistrate avers at paragraph 4.7 that pursuant to a mistaken interpretation, competent and admissible evidence was erroneously rejected. The transcribed court proceedings do not, it would appear, support this conclusion. At page 45 line 18 the court, having considered the evidence tendered and in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the evidence tendered is insufficient. [26] Against this background it seems to me that the matter does not fall within the ambit of Section 24(d). [27] Neither does it qualify for review in terms of Section 24(c). A mistake of law is generally speaking not per se an irregularity. (See S v Bushebi 1996 (2) SACR 448 (Nmb) at 450D) Mistakes of law are however, under certain circumstances liable to lead to the review of decisions made in consequence thereof. (See Hira & Another v Booysen & Another 1992 (4) SA 69 (A)) Such circumstances arise where the mistake is of such a nature that as a consequence, the lower court declines to exercise the function
15 15 entrusted to it. In this situation there is an irregularity in the proceedings, which is reviewable. (See Goldfields Investments Limited & Another v City Council of Johannesburg & Another 1938 TPD 551 at ) As stated by Froneman J in Qozeleni v Minister of Law & Order & Another 1994 (3) SA 625 (E) at 638G, in determining whether a mistake constitutes an irregularity, it is necessary to draw a distinction between mistakes of law which lead to a situation where the law is not applied at all, as opposed to situations where the law is applied, but incorrectly. Applying that principle to the present matter, as the Magistrate evalutated a set of facts against a legal standard, albeit the wrong standard, the mistake does not amount to an irregularity in the proceedings. [28] By analogy, in S v Basson (2004 (6) BCLR 620 (CC) at 625D C) it was held that a recusal challenge involved a juristic evaluation which was a matter of law, the correctness of which evaluation raised a question of law.
16 16 [29] For these reasons the provisions of Section 24(c) are also not applicable to the present case. [30] As it is self evident that neither Section 24 (a) nor (b) apply to the instant case, this matter does not qualify for review in terms of the Supreme Court Act. [31] This court is also enjoined to review this matter on the basis of its inherent jurisdiction as prescribed in terms of Section 173 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.(The Constitution) [32] Section 173 provides as follows: "173 Inherent power The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice." [33] A review of the cases reveals a reluctance on the part of our Courts to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, particularly in criminal matters. In Sefatsa & Others v Attorney General, Transvaal, & Another (supra at 834E) Rabie ACJ concluded that it was settled
17 17 law that the courts jurisdiction in criminal matters "is determined by Statute, i.e. the Criminal Procedure Act and such other relevant statutory provisions as there may be." In S v Makopu (1989 (2) SA 577E), in rejecting the finding in S v Lubisi (1980 (1) SA 187(T)) the court found that for a number of policy reasons a court should not, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction or in the interests of justice, set aside an acquittal. In formulating this finding Jones J stated that " there are a number of policy considerations which underlie our criminal law which may be raised to support an argument that, even if the Court has inherent power to make this kind of order (the setting aside of an acquittal), it should not do so. I refer, for example, to the policy considerations which require certainty and finality in criminal cases, or which preclude a second prosecution when fresh evidence is found." At p578c D Jones J continued that a court should, in any event, "not exercise an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal without first hearing the accused." In S v Makopu the court was asked to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and in the interests of justice set aside an acquittal. In
18 18 commenting on the desirability of this, Jones J at p578c stated that a court "should not exercise an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal without first hearing the accused." [34] Similarly, in S v Bushebi (1996(2) SACR 448 (Nmb) at 451C) Leon AJA cautioned that even if it is assumed that a court does have the inherent power to intervene, such a power "should be exercised sparingly and only in the most exceptional circumstances." The court went on to point out that it would appear that there were at that stage only two cases where the South African Supreme Court has, in the exercise of its inherent power of review, set aside an acquittal. These were the unreported case of Hubbard v Regional Magistrate, the ratio of which was that the mistake in that instance deprived the party of the right to a fair trial and S v Lubiso. The latter case, the facts of which were extremely unusual, has not found favour in subsequent cases (See S v Makriel and Others 1986 (3) SA 932 (C); S v Makopu supra; Attorney General, Eastern Cape v Linda 1989 (2) SA 578 and S v Ntswayi en 'n Ander 1991 (2) SACR 397
19 19 (C)). None of the unusual facts in Lubisi's case exist in the present case. [35] In Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service (1996 (3) SA (A)) the court adopted a similar approach, concluding that its inherent power was reserved for extraordinary cases where grave injustices would not otherwise be preventable. This does not appear to me to be the situation in the present case. [36] All these cases have now to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Constitution. In Hansen v The Regional Magistrate, Cape Town & Another (1999 (2) SACR 430) Davis J, in commenting on the effects of Section 173 on the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, stated at p433e "Section 173 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act 108 of 1996 ('final Constitution') has broadened the inherent jurisdiction of the court in that it provides that the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have inherent power to protect and
20 20 regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice. Section 173 of the Constitution confirms a concept of inherent jurisdiction which promotes the interests of justice within the context of the values of the Constitution. This is a wider concept than that provided for in s 19(1)(a) and s 19(3) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 " The facts of that case involved a review of a disturbing disparity between the sentence imposed on the accused and that imposed on a co accused at a subsequent trial. Of significance was the basis for the Court s intervention, namely that the disparity only arose after the accused had exhausted all his other legal remedies, which is not the position in the instant case. [37] In S v Tshabalala (2002 (1) SACR 605 (WLD)), a case also involving a review of an acquittal, Goldstein J likewise invoked the provisions of Section 173 on the basis of the special circumstances of that case. With reference to the correct procedure Goldstein J at p607g H said "A difficulty in the present matter is that the Criminal Procedure Act 51
21 21 of 1997 (as amended) does not appear to sanction a referral of an acquittal to a High Court for review, as the learned magistrate has done. The State ought to have appealed against the judgment of the Court below in terms of s 310 of the Act or possibly brought the decision on review in terms of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court, joining the learned magistrate and the accused." The special circumstances in that case were stated to be that: (a) The magistrate himself had referred the matter to the Court as a special review. He had thus approved of the procedure himself. (b) The accused was informed by the magistrate through her attorney that she had the right to make representations in regard to the merits of the matter. (c) The State had dealt in full with the issue. (d) The issue in dispute, namely the application of the de minimis rule, was an easy one and if the procedure of an appeal had been followed it would have been highly unlikely that the accused would have been able to say anything in support of the acquittal. (The present case differs from that case both with regard to the issue in dispute and more significantly in that the accused is unaware of the review proceedings.) [38] Although the mistake in the instant case is regrettable, it would seem to me that no special circumstances exist. The accused has not been heard and all the legal remedies have not been exhausted. There is thus in my opinion no basis on which the provisions of Section173 can be invoked.
22 22 [39] A decision to acquit on the basis that there is no evidence upon which a reasonable person can convict is a question of law involving "the social judgment of the court" (See S V Basson 2004 (6) BCLR 620 (CC) at 646 F H and S v Bochris Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another 1988 (1) SA 861 (A)) and as such is appealable (See Attorney General,Venda v Molepo and Others 1992 (2) SACR 534 (V) at 538 A C). [40] In the circumstances it appears to me that the matter has been erroneously submitted on review. I would merely note that the matter was submitted on review and make no ruling in respect of the matter. The Director of Public Prosecutions is at liberty to institute appeal proceedings to have the mistake of law corrected. [41] The record on review was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Cape of Good Hope with a request that he should comment on the matter, and I am indebted to him for doing so. The Director concurs with the opinion of a member of his staff who states that because of the uncertainty created by the lack of
23 23 clarity of the applicable definition, the matter qualifies for special review in the interests of the administration of justice. It is accordingly recommended that the acquittal be set aside and the matter be referred back to the magistrate for a resumption of the trial only on the first charge. For the reasons already stated, I cannot agree with this. NC ERASMUS, J I concur. DO POTGIETER, AJ
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case Number : 99/2014 THE STATE and RETHABILE NTSHONYANE THABANG NTSHONYANE CORAM: DAFFUE, J et MURRAY, AJ JUDGMENT
More informationFIREARMS CONTROL ACT 60 OF 2000
Legislation updated to: 27 May 2011 FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 60 OF 2000 [ASSENTED TO 4 APRIL 2001] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JULY 2004] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) as
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. DR345/11 In the matter between: THE STATE and MONGEZI DUMA SPECIAL REVIEW JUDGMENT Delivered on 16/8/2011 NDLOVU J
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK REVIEW JUDGMENT Case no: CR 39/2017 In the matter between: THE STATE And HENDRIK BAM MATHEW MWANGA 1 ST ACCUSED 2 ND ACCUSED
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 521/06 Reportable In the matter between : BODY CORPORATE OF GREENACRES APPELLANT and GREENACRES UNIT 17 CC GREENACRES UNIT 18 CC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 162/10 In the matter between: THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE and SAIRA ESSA PRODUCTIONS CC SAIRA ESSA MARK CORLETT
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT) MARK JONATHAN GOLDBERG NATIONAL MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECOND RESPONDENT FIFTH RESPONDENT
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT) Case No: 15927/12 In the matter between: MARK JONATHAN GOLDBERG APPLICANT and PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
More informationREASONS FOR ORDER GRANTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO:246/2018 In the matter between: LUSANDA SULANI APPLICANT AND MS T. MASHIYI AND ANO RESPONDENTS REASONS FOR ORDER GRANTED
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/01 IN RE: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MPUMALANGA PETITIONS BILL, 2000 Heard on : 16 August 2001 Decided on : 5 October 2001 JUDGMENT LANGA DP: Introduction
More informationFIREARMS CONTROL ACT 60 OF 2000
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 60 OF 2000 [ASSENTED TO 4 APRIL 2001] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JULY 2004] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) as amended by Firearms Control Amendment
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 20450/2014 In the matter between: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, GAUTENG APPELLANT and MOLEFE JOSEPH MPHAPHAMA RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FIREARMS CONTROL ACT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FIREARMS CONTROL ACT No, 00 ACT To establish a comprehensive and an effective system of firearms control; and to provide for matters connected therewith. Section 1. Definitions
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2002
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF No : 1907/2002 CASE No : D 122/2002 Magistrate s Series No : 171/2002 In the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIPHO ALPHA KONDLO Appellant and EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationTHE 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 informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 24 NOVEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) REPORTABLE Case Numbers: 16996/2017 In the matter between: NEVILLE COOPER Applicant and MAGISTRATE MHLANGA Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MTHETHO JOSEPH KHUMALO
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In matter between: THE STATE VS Review No: 138/2011 MTHETHO JOSEPH KHUMALO Accused CORAM: KRUGER et C.J. MUSI, JJ JUDGMENT BY: C.J. MUSI, J
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR1944/12 DAVID CHAUKE Applicant and SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL THE MINISTER OF POLICE COMMISSIONER F J
More informationRepublic 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015
CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application
More informationThe Right of Appearance in Courts Act 62 of 1995 (the Act) was enacted inter alia to regulate and extend the right of attorneys to appear in court.
Right of attorneys to appear in court: What rights have been extended? By Vuyo Mkwibiso The Right of Appearance in Courts Act 62 of 1995 (the Act) was enacted inter alia to regulate and extend the right
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY SOUTH AFRICAN HUNTERS AND GAME CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CCT 177/17 In the matter between MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN HUNTERS AND GAME CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION Respondent and FIDELITY SECURITY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no: D536/12 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY Applicant and COMMISSIONER
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL 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 informationMINISTER 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 490/15 In the matter between: ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE Applicant and PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING COUNCIL DANIEL
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Applicant
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 122/17, 220/17 and 298/17 CCT 122/17 M T Applicant and THE STATE Respondent CCT 220/17 In the matter between: A S B Applicant and THE
More informationIN 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationBuffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant
More informationCanadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights Legislative Revisions of Bill C- 71: Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms in context of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c.
More informationHIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. 1. These are review proceedings in which the applicant, a public school, seeks
HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE NO: 242/2001 In the matter between: DESPATCH HIGH SCHOOL Applicant and THE HEAD OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 1 st Respondent THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
More informationNumber 28 of 2009 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART 1 Preliminary and General
Number 28 of 2009 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Expenses. PART
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 In the matter between : SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES APPLICANT and SUPT F H LUBBE FIRST RESPONDENT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN [Reportable] High Court Ref. No. : 14552 Case No. : WRC 85/2009 In the matter between: ANTHONY KOK Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 06/134 In the matter between: KEVIN NAIDOO Appellant (Accused 2) and THE STATE Respondent J U D G M E N T BLIEDEN, J:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION. Case No.: 4576/2006. In the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION Case No.: 4576/2006 In the matter between: EN BM DM EJM LMI MAZ MSM N D N S SEM TJX T S VPM ZPM LM2 TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN and THE GOVERNMENT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no. JR1005/13. SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) obo SD MOLLO & PE NAILE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no. JR1005/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) obo SD MOLLO & PE NAILE Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2003
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF NO: 1144/2003 CASE No: D997/2002 MAGISTRATE S SERIAL No: 105/2003 In the matter
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
62/87 /mb IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In tne matter between: THE STATE APPELLANT AND RENé HORN RESPONDENT CORAM : CORBETT, KUMLEBEN, JJA et BOSHOFF, AJA HEARD : 22 MARCH 1988
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between:
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) APPEAL CASE NO : A5044/09 DATE: 18/08/2010 In the matter between: HENRY GEORGE DAVID COCHRANE Appellant (Respondent a quo) and THE
More informationCONTRABAND CIGARETTES: PROSECUTIONS AND SANCTIONS ADV A MOSING
CONTRABAND CIGARETTES: PROSECUTIONS AND SANCTIONS ADV A MOSING Introduction The NPA deals with contraband (illicit or counterfeit) cigarette cases mainly through the specialized Tax Units. Also the Organized
More informationJOHANNES 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REVIEW JUDGMENT : 21 SEPTEMBER 2004
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) High Court Reference Number: 0402509 Case Number: 24/127/2004 Magistrate s Series Number: 241/2004 In the matter between:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 3022/02 REPORTABLE In the matter ex parte application of : LEON OWEN SANDERS ID NUMBER : 731215 5158 084 First Applicant
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- THE STATE and Review No. : 160/2012 SIFISO TSHABALALA CORAM: KRUGER, J et DAFFUE, J JUDGMENT BY: DAFFUE, J DELIVERED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case No. : 2631/2013 JACQUES VLOK Applicant versus SILVER CREST TRADING 154 (PTY) LTD MERCANTILE BANK LTD ENGEN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE CASE NO: A221/06 DATE: 21/05/2007 THE STATE APPELLANT V OSCAR NZIMANDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R D CLAASSEN J: 1 This is an appeal
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Fhetani v S [2007] JOL 20663 (SCA) Issue Order Reportable CASE NO 158/2007 In the matter between TAKALANI FHETANI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Coram: Nugent,
More informationRIKA MADELYN VILLET Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT. [1] This is a review in the ordinary course. The learned magistrate was, in
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNSESBURG High Court Ref. No. 109/2009 Magistrate s Ref. No. 09/2009 Review Case No. DH 712/2009 THE STATE versus RIKA MADELYN VILLET Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT MEYER, J. [1]
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DANIEL WILLIAM MOKELA. (135/11) [2011] ZASCA 166 (29 September 2011)
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 135/11 In the matter between: DANIEL WILLIAM MOKELA Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Mokela v The State (135/11) [2011]
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG SVETLOV IVANCMEC IVANOV
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO.: 154/2010 SVETLOV IVANCMEC IVANOV APPLICANT and NORTH WEST GAMBLING BOARD INSPECTOR FREDDY INSPECTOR PITSE THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE RUSTENBURG
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 959/2015 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA APPLICANT and DANIEL CHAKA MOABI
More informationPRO BONO AND HUMAN RIGHTS. A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication process
PRO BONO AND HUMAN RIGHTS A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication process TABLE OF CONTENTS A guide to the judicial review of decisions made during the asylum adjudication
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES OF NATAL
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 2/98 JOAQUIM AUGUSTO DE FREITAS INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF ADVOCATES OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant Second Applicant versus THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES OF NATAL
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 959/2015 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA APPLICANT and DANIEL CHAKA MOABI
More informationIN 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: Appeal number: A1/2016
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2015/5890 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED.... 23 May 2016 SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley) JUDGMENT: SPECIAL REVIEW
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ISLAMIC UNITY CONVENTION CHAIRPERSON OF THE BROADCASTING MONITORING AND COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 33/07 [2007] ZACC 26 ISLAMIC UNITY CONVENTION Applicant versus MINISTER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA CHAIRPERSON
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 9366/2017. In the matter between: and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: PUMA SE CASE NO: 9366/2017 PLAINTIFF and HAM TRADING ENTERPRISE CC HABTAMU KUME TEGEGN THE MINISTER OF POLICE
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. ( The Tribunal ) CASE NO: CT021MARCH 2015
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ( The Tribunal ) CASE NO: CT021MARCH 2015 Re: In an Application in terms of Section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ( the Act ) for a determination
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98. First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA Motion Engineering (Pty) Ltd
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98 In the matter between: O D Zaayman Applicant and Provincial Director: CCMA Gauteng First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. DAVID MBALEKI First Appellant. AFRICA MGQAMBI Second Appellant. THE STATE Respondent
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2853/2011 In the matter between DAVID MBALEKI First Appellant AFRICA MGQAMBI Second Appellant versus THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationFIREARMS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FIREARMS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill) (MINISTER
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no 332/08 In the matter between: ABSA BROKERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and RMB FINANCIAL SERVICES RMB ASSET MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: JR 1343/10 NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE Applicant and FABRICATED STEEL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No 427/96 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In die matter of: GNH OFFICE AUTOMATION C.C. First Appellant NAUGIS INVESTMENTS C.C. Second Appellant and PROVINCIAL
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
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 NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 438/11 In the matter between: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER J S K NKOSI N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA
national consumer tribunal IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL, HELD AT PRETORIA Case No.: NCT/09/2008/57(1) (P) In the matter between SHOSHOLOZA FINANCE CC Applicant And NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref. No: 16424 Magistrate s Court Case No: 205/16 Magistrate s Court Ref. No.: 26/2016 In the matter between: THE STATE
More informationAt the outset, it is necessary to deal with the relevant provisions of the MCA and the SCCA.
Paying a small claims court judgment debt in instalments By Fareed Moosa In First Rand Bank Ltd v Maleke and Three Similar Cases 2010 (1) SA 143 (GSJ) the court commented, with reference to s 73 of the
More informationCONSOLIDATION OF A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TO REGULATE THE CARRYING AND USE OF FIREARMS, ARCHERY EQUIPMENT WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
Sheet 1-5057 CONSOLIDATION OF A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE TO REGULATE THE CARRYING AND USE OF FIREARMS, ARCHERY EQUIPMENT WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 20900/08 In the matter between: ROSSO SPORT AUTO CC Applicant and VIGLIETTI MOTORS (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley) Saakno
More information[1]This is an interlocutory application in terms of which the applicants seek leave to
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JS 508/06 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICA TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION NOMAHLUBI MABIJA 1 ST APPLICANT 2 ND APPLICANT
More informationSUBMISSIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 45B(1C) OF FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE AMENDMENT BILL
20 January 2016 The Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance c/o The Committee Secretary Mr Allen Wicomb 3 rd floor 90 Plein Street CAPE TOWN 8000 Doc Ref: Your ref: Direct : (011) 645 6704 E-
More informationREPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF NO: MAG COURT CASE NO: 3/1023/2005
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF NO: 0503232 MAG COURT CASE NO: 3/1023/2005 MAG COURT SERIAL NO: 180/05 In the matter between: THE STATE
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 168/14 MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS Applicant and LIESL-LENORE THOMAS Respondent Neutral citation: Minister of Defence
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) High Court Review Case No: 30/08 Magistrate Case No: 1149/2007 Date delivered:
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) High Court Review Case No: 30/08 Magistrate Case No: 1149/2007
More informationBERMUDA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE AND CRIMINAL REFORM ACT 2015) REGULATIONS 2015 BR 89 / 2015
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE AND CRIMINAL BR 89 / 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Citation Amends section 3 Amends section 5 Amends section 7 Amends
More informationPREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DRUG DEPENDENCY ACT 20 OF 1992
Page 1 of 32 PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DRUG DEPENDENCY ACT 20 OF 1992 (English text signed by the State President) [Assented To: 3 March 1992] [Commencement Date: 30 April 1993 unless otherwise indicated]
More informationIn the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg. Northern Training Trust. Third Respondent. Judgment
1 In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg In the matter between: Case number: JR268/ 02 Northern Training Trust Applicant and Josiah Maake Sita Gesina Maria Du Toit CCMA First Respondent
More informationChapter 340. Bail Act Certified on: / /20.
Chapter 340. Bail Act 1977. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Chapter 340. Bail Act 1977. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Interpretation. bail bail authority
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 244/13 In the matter between: GRANCY PROPERTY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Appellants and SEENA MARENA INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD AND OTHERS Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Appeal No.: A125/2013 In the matter between: SILAS NTULINI Applicant and THE REGIONAL COURT MAGISTRATE, First Respondent BLOEMFONTEIN
More informationMEC: 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 informationMAINTENANCE AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 7); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 38138 of 29 October 2014)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG Case No.: AR215/08 In the matter between:
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG Case No.: AR215/08 In the matter between: HOPEWELL NYAMAKAZI APPLICANT and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS KWAZULU-NATAL
More informationCRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT NO. 51 OF 1977
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT NO. 51 OF 1977 As Amended by Criminal Procedure Matters Amendment Act, No. 79 of 1978 (RSA) Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, No. 56 of 1979 (RSA) Criminal Procedure Amendment Act,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. BRUCE E McGREGOR APPELLANT CORPCOM OUTDOOR (PTY) LTD APPELLANT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: 89/06 In the matter between: BRUCE E McGREGOR APPELLANT CORPCOM OUTDOOR (PTY) LTD APPELLANT FIRST SECOND and CITY OF
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
P a g e 1 Reportable Circulate to Judges Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley) Case Nr: 826/2010 Date heard:
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In an application to compel between: COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16 WBHO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Applicant And THE COMPETITION COMMISSION GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON)
2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: 35420 / 03 Date heard: 17 & 21/02/2006 Date of judgment: 4/8/2006 PAUL JACOBUS SMIT PLAINTIFF
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LIMITED. Neutral citation: Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited [2017] ZACC 6
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 76/16 MARIA JANE MOGAILA Applicant and COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty)
More information