Highlighting the higher courts’ obligation to protect vulnerable groups when magistrates fail to conduct the competency test properly

Highlighting the higher courts’ obligation to protect vulnerable groups when magistrates fail to conduct the competency test properly

Author Nondumiso Phenyane

ISSN: 1996-2088
Affiliations: B Soc Sci LLB LLM (UCT), Lecturer, Department of Public Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: Acta Juridica, 2023, p. 77 – 98
https://doi.org/10.47348/ACTA/2023/a4

Abstract

This article uses a series of judgments to highlight that the review or appeal courts’ strict and formalistic application of the competency test and s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has been as detrimental to the rights and interests of vulnerable complainants as the contested rules themselves. The article examines matters where review or appeal courts set aside rape convictions because magistrates failed to conduct the competency test properly. It argues that, while the courts could not avoid setting aside the wrongful convictions, this should not have led to a compromise of vulnerable complainants’ right to protection. In addition to setting the convictions aside, the higher courts should have adopted an approach that helped to mitigate the risks faced by the complainants. Therefore, the article suggests that higher courts which are called upon to decide such matters should use the following approach in the future. First, they should use the results of the competency test as an item of evidence and should evaluate the reliability of the complainants’ evidence only at the end of the trial. Where a matter goes on review or appeal because a magistrate failed to conduct the competency test entirely or adequately, the higher courts should evaluate the complainant’s testimony before deciding whether to exclude it. In instances where there is a possibility that the complainant’s testimony is reliable, the higher courts should remit the matter to the magistrate to address the procedural error. However, in instances where the complainant’s evidence is unreliable, and remittal is not possible, the courts should set the conviction aside and assign a social worker to oversee the complainant’s protection after the release of the accused. Setswana: Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele ya dikatlholo go bontsha gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1) ya Molao wa Tsamaiso ya Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi go ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona. Athikele eno e tlhatlhoba dintlha tseo mo go tsona dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di beelang kwa thoko dikatlholo tsa petelelo ka ntlha ya gore magiseterata o reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e nepagetseng. E bolela gore, le fa dikgotlatshekelo di ka se kgone go tila go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo tse di fosagetseng, seno se ne se sa tshwanela go lebisa go tshwaelo ya tshwanelo ya tshireletso ya bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang. Mo godimo ga go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di ne di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o thusitseng go fokotsa dikotsi tse bangongoregi ba neng ba lebane natso. Ka jalo, athikele eno e tshwaela gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo tseo di tshwanetseng go atlhola merero e e jalo di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o latelang mo isagweng. Sa ntlha, di tshwanetse go dirisa dipholo tsa teko ya bokgoni jaaka bopaki e bile di tshwanetse go sekaseka boikanyego jwa bopaki jwa bangongoregi fela kwa bokhutlong jwa tsheko. Fao morero o sekasekiwang gape kgotsa o ikuelwa ka gonne magiseterata a reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka botlalo kgotsa ka tsela e e tshwanetseng, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go sekaseka bopaki jwa mongongoregi pele di swetsa gore di tla bo gana. Mo makgetlong a go nang le kgonagalo ya gore bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo a ikanyega, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di tshwanetse go busetsa morero go magiseterata go bo rarabolola. Le fa go le jalo, mo makgetlong a mo go ona bopaki jwa mongongoregi bo sa ikanyegeng, mme go ka se kgonege gore a busediwe kgolegelong, dikgotlatshekelo di tshwanetse go beela thoko katlholo le go neela modirediloago tiro ya go okamela tshireletso ya mongongoregi morago ga go gololwa ga molatofadiwa.

Cultural vulnerability and judicial recognition of heterosexual life-partnerships in South Africa

Cultural vulnerability and judicial recognition of heterosexual life-partnerships in South Africa

Author Christa Rautenbach

ISSN: 1996-2088
Affiliations: BIuris LLB LLM LLD; Professor, Faculty of Law, North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus)
Source: Acta Juridica, 2023, p. 99 – 126
https://doi.org/10.47348/ACTA/2023/a5

Abstract

This article examines the potential role of cultural vulnerability in matters where heterosexual life partners claim the same spousal benefits under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 and the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The discussion focuses on the differences and commonalities between two judgments, Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) and Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). By comparing the two cases, I speculate that the outcome differs considerably because of the cultural vulnerability of one of the partners in the latter judgment. The inescapable fact is that women, particularly black women, are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of the [non]-recognition of domestic partnerships.1 Sepedi: Sengwalwa se se lekola kgonagalo ya gore khuetšo ya setšo e ka ba e ama dikahlolo, fao molekani yo mongwe magareng ga balekani ba go fapana ka bong bao ba dutšego mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana, a dirago kleimi ya setlwaedi ya dikholego tša molekane wa mohu ka tlase ga Molao wa Tlhokomelo ya Balekani bao ba Phologilego wa 27 wa 1990 le Molao wa Kabelo ya Bajalefa Dithoto ge Mohu a se a Ngwala Wili wa 81 wa 1987. Poledišano ye e šeditše diphapano le ditshwano magareng ga dikahlolo tše tše pedi, ya Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) le ya Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). Ge ke bapetša melato ye ye mebedi, ke naganela gore dipoelo di fapana ka lebaka la khuetšo yeo setšo se bilego le yona, yeo e gateletšego yo mongwe magareng ga balekani kahlolong ya molato wa bobedi. Nnete yeo re ka se e tšhabelego ke gore basadi, kudukudu basadi ba baso, bontši bja bona ba kotsing ya ditlamorago tša go se kgahliše tša go hlolwa ke go se lemogwe ga dikamano tša balekani ba go dula mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana.

What are the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary law?

What are the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary law?

Author Julia Sloth-Nielsen

ISSN: 1996-2088
Affiliations: BA LLB LLM LLD, Emeritus professor, University of the Western Cape and Professor, University of Huddersfield
Source: Acta Juridica, 2023, p. 127 – 151
https://doi.org/10.47348/ACTA/2023/a6

Abstract

This contribution examines the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary unions in South Africa. Bwanya ruled that the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act were unconstitutional to the extent that they failed to include heterosexual life partners as beneficiaries falling within their remit, which violated their right to equality and to dignity. The extent to which life partners’ positions may henceforth be ameliorated by legislative reform is first examined against the backdrop of the Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008, which did not muster support in Parliament. Thereafter, the article discusses what implications the recognition of life partnerships may hold for customary law unions. It is tentatively concluded that it may be that whilst customary unions may continue as a social practice, it may be questioned whether in future there is legal space for them to persist in their current form. Sesotho: Atekele ena e hlahloba ditlamorao tsa Bwanya v The Master of the High Court bakeng sa manyalo a setso Afrika Borwa. Bwanya o ile a diha kahlolo ka hore Intestate Succession Act le Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Act e ne e se molaong ho ya kamoo e ileng ya hloleha ho kenyeletsa balekane ba bong bo fapaneng ba phelang mmoho e le bajamafa ba welang boikarabelong ba bona, e leng se ileng sa hatakela tokelo ya bona ya tekano le seriti. Ho ya kamoo maemo a balekane ba phelang mmoho a ka matlafatswang ho ya pele ka ntjhafatso ya molao ho qala ho hlahlojwa ho itshetlehilwe ka Domestic Partnership Bill ya 2008, e ileng ya se fumane tshehetso ka Palamenteng. Kamora moo, atekele e ile ya tshohla hore ke ditlamorao dife tse ka bang teng tsa ho lemoha dilekane tsa ho phela mmoho bakeng sa manyalo a setso. Ho nkuwa qeto ka lesisitheho hore leha manyalo a setso a ka nna a tswela pele jwalo ka tlwaelo setjhabeng, ho ka nna ha ba le dipotso hore ebe nako e tlang ho na le sebaka sa ona molaong hore a nne a tswele pele ka tsela eo a ntseng a etsa nakong ya jwale.

Gender equality in customary marriages: Is the deregulation of customary marriages the solution?

Gender equality in customary marriages: Is the deregulation of customary marriages the solution?

Author Pieter Bakker

ISSN: 1996-2088
Affiliations: BLC LLB LLD (UP); Professor, University of South Africa
Source: Acta Juridica, 2023, p. 152 – 185
https://doi.org/10.47348/ACTA/2023/a7

Abstract

Although the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RCMA) contains provisions to ensure equality between the spouses in a customary marriage, the RCMA has serious deficiencies that are detrimental to the weaker party in customary marriages. To rectify the deficiencies in customary marriages and other relationships, the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) are conducting simultaneous investigations into South African marriage law. This article critically discusses the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA to determine whether the proposed legislation will address the current deficiencies in the RCMA. As an alternative to the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA, the deregulation of customary marriages is advanced as a solution to the inequitable position of spouses in customary marriages under the RCMA. isiNdebele: Nanyana umThetho wokwAmukela imiTjhado yesiNtu we-120 ka-1998 (Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA)) umumethe iindinyana zokuqinisekisa ukulingana phakathi kwabalingani emtjhadweni wesintu, i-RCMA inokutlhayela okukhulu okulimaza ihlangothi elibuthakathaka emitjhadweni yesintu. Ukulungisa ukutlhayela lokho emitjhadweni yesintu kanye nobunye ubudlelwano, iKomitjhini yokuBuyekezwa kwemiThetho yeSewula Africa (South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC)) kanye nomNyango wezangeKhaya (Department of Home Affairs (DHA)) benza iphenyo ngesikhathi sinye mayelana nomthetho wemitjhado weSewula Afrika. I-atikili le ihlathuthula kabanzi ngeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne-DHA kobana kuthathwe isiqunto sokobana ingabe umthetho ohlongozwako uzokuqalana nokutlhayela kwagadesi okuku-RCMA. Njengenye indlela yeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne- DHA, ukuqedwa kwemithetho yemitjhado yesintu kuthuthukiswe njengesisombululo sobujamo bokungalingani kwabalingani emitjhadweni yesintu ngaphasi kwe-RCMA.

The Reform of Customary Law of Succession Act in contemporary South Africa

The Reform of Customary Law of Succession Act in contemporary South Africa

Author Fatima Osman

ISSN: 1996-2088
Affiliations: Bus Sci LLB LLM PhD (UCT); Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Cape Town
Source: Acta Juridica, 2023, p. 186 – 213
https://doi.org/10.47348/ACTA/2023/a8

Abstract

Historically, the customary law of intestate succession was a flexible system of law that prioritised the well-being of the family. The law was distorted during the colonial and apartheid eras to focus on the individual inheritance of property. In 2010, the South African legislature passed the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Act 11 of 2009 – which applies the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 – to regulate the devolution of estates of individuals who live according to customary law and die intestate. This article examines whether the current framework adequately addresses the needs of contemporary South African society. It argues that the prioritisation of the nuclear family for inheritance may be out of sync with the myriad ways in which families are formed and that the Master of the High Court should be given a discretion in the distribution of an estate. This will undoubtedly result in uncertainty but may ameliorate some of the shortcomings of a fixed, rules-based system of inheritance that does not reflect contemporary society. Tshivenḓa: Ḓivhanizwakale, mulayo wa mbingano ya tshirema wa uri muthu a lovha ndaka yawe i ḓo kovhiwa vhukati ha mufumakadzi, vhana, vhabebi na vharathu wo vha u sisiṱeme ya vhutepe ya mulayo une wa vhea phanḓa mutakalo na mvelaphanḓa ya muṱa. Mulayo wo khakhiswa nga tshifhinga tsha koloni na tsha khethululo u itela u sedzesa kha vhuḽaifa ha ndaka ha muthu muthihi. Nga 2010, vhusimamilayo ha Afurika Tshipembe ho phasisa Mulayo wa Khakhululo ya Mulayo wa Mbingano ya Tshirema wa Vhuḽaifa na Ndaulo ya Mafhungo a re na Vhushaka nazwo wa 11 wa 2009 – une wa shumisa Mulayo wa u Kovha Ndaka Vhukati ha Vhaḽaifa wa 81 wa 1987 – u laula u fhiriselwa ha ndaka ya vhathu vho lovhaho vhane vha tshila u ya nga mulayo wa mbingano ya tshirema vha lovha vha so ngo sia wiḽi. Athikili iyi i ṱola arali muhanga wa musalauno u tshi dzudzanya zwavhuḓi ṱhoḓea dza tshitshavha tsha MaAfurika Tshipembe tsha musalauno. U ṱaṱa uri u vhewa phanḓa ha tshigwada tsha muṱa u itela u vhuḽaifa a zwi tsha tendelana na nḓila dzine zwigwada zwa miṱa zwa vhumbwa ngayo na uri Ṱhoho ya Khothe ya Nṱha u fanela u ṋewa maanḓa a u dzhia tsheo kha u kovha ndaka ya mufu. Izwi zwi hu si na u timatima zwi ḓo ḓisa u sa vha na vhuṱanzi fhedzi zwi nga ḓisa u fushea kha zwiṅwe zwa vhukolikoli ha sisiṱeme yo vhewaho, yo ḓisendekaho kha milayo ya vhuḽaifa vhune ha si bvisele khagala tshitshavha tsha musalauno.