ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 415-427
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a7
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 428-434
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a8
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Retired Judge, Supreme Court of Appeal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 2, p. 435-436
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i2a9
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: WP Schreiner Professor of Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 1, p. 1-14
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i1a1
This note starts by distinguishing the making from the reporting of a defamatory statement, and both of these from the repetition of one. Thereafter, having introduced the general rule that a defendant who made or reported a defamatory statement about a plaintiff to a third party cannot avoid liability on the ground that she was merely repeating a statement made by a fourth party, the note goes on to discuss certain already-existing exceptions, and possible exceptions, to this rule. Finally, the note looks at whether our law should acknowledge a further exception, namely where a defendant repeated a defamatory statement by reporting it, while knowing it to be false, but did so only in order to refute it.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, University of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 1, p. 15-23
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i1a2
Section 23 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, read with rule 31(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court, empowers the Registrar of the High Court, save in exceptional circumstances involving residential property, to grant default judgments. The purpose of this rule is to prevent the overburdening of the court roll and judicial workload by allowing Registrars the discretion to grant default judgments in uncomplicated, undefended matters. In recent judgments in Gcashamba v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd & another 2023 (1) SA 141 (FB) and Ngandela v Absa Bank Ltd & another [2023] ZAECELLC 6, the courts both found that a Registrar is not empowered to grant default judgments in matters relating to the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. The question thus arises whether the National Credit Act has changed and effectively reduced the Registrar’s powers. The implications of these judgments are far-reaching. Not only do they appear to have lessened the powers of the Registrar, but they also have the effect of increasing the administrative workload of judges and potentially delaying the enforcement process of credit agreements subject to the National Credit Act.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Associate, Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc; Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Fort Hare
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 1, p. 24-44
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i1a3
The possessory action is a relatively unknown common-law remedy. It has not featured in the law reports for the best part of the last one hundred years and is generally relegated to a cursory discussion in most property-law textbooks. Its basic formulation is that where one has been dispossessed of an item, one is to be restored in possession, paid compensation and/or paid damages if one has a stronger right to possess the item than the dispossessor. Although it has fallen out of fashion, there is growing interest in how the possessory action may be used to address contemporary issues. One such issue is persistent and recurring cynical evictions — unlawful evictions during which the home structure is demolished and destroyed. Whether the possessory action is at all available as a remedy for cynical evictions is unclear. This article explores the history, nature, and scope of the possessory action and asks whether it can be appropriately applied to oppose cynical evictions.