summary

Does the mere fact that a murderer was granted amnesty by the trc mean that he cannot be referred toas a murderer? "no" said the constitutional court. the law of defamation was rewritten when R3.6 million was claimed, R200 000 was awarded by the trial court, reduced to R150 000 by the sca and finally to R50 000 by the constitutional court. 08 April 2011

summary

In landmark judgments by the SCA, a decision to dismiss complaint against Hlophe JP by the JSC was set aside. The SCA ruled the JSC was not properly constituted in the absence of the WC Premier and a vote of 6 against 4 is not a majority vote in a body comprising of 15 members. In another judgment, the dismissal of an application to set aside JSC proceedings by the Gauteng High Court was set aside and replaced with an order setting aside such proceedings. It’s now back to drawing board for the JSC. See below for details. 31 March 2011

summary

In 2008 and in 2010, the High Court (Northern Gauteng) per Prinsloo J handed down judgments that are reported as: Von Abo v Government of the Republic of South Africa & others 2009 (2) SA 526 (T) and Von Abo v Government of the Republic of South Africa & others 2010 (3) SA 269 (GNP). In terms of these judgments, a court had prescribed for the government on times frame how to protect the rights and property of a South African citizen who was a victim of the Zimbabwean land acquisition, and to report back on the progress made. The second order was an order for damages that the victim could prove he suffered at the hands of the Zimbabwean government. The SCA also had to answer the question on whether the fact that a party to an action complied (or attempted to) with no intention to appeal, precludes him to appeal irrespective of whether the order was wrong in law. The SCA reinforced the old principle: “[I]t would create an intolerable position if a Court were to be precluded from giving the right decision on accepted facts, merely because a party failed to raise a legal point, as a result of an error of law on his part…” The SCA was also critical of the High Court quoting extensively from a minority judgment (in this case by Ngcobo J – now CJ) of the CC forgetting that the law is made out of the majority judgment. The 2 judgments were set aside. Judgments of the High Court were regarded as wrong in law (vicarious liability between the States) and encroaches the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. See a full judgment attached – my emphasis. 04 April 2011