ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 4, p. 893-902
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i4a9
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 4, p. 903-911
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i4a10
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 4, p. 912-920
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i4a11
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 3, p. 465-480
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i3a1
In South African law, a beneficiary may be disqualified from inheriting for killing the deceased, forging the deceased’s will, or acting in a morally reprehensible manner towards the deceased. In Smit v The Master of the High Court, Western Cape [2022] 4 All SA 146 (WCC), the court disqualified a wife from inheriting from her deceased husband because she had conspired to kill him. The court also disqualified her for forging his testamentary documents and his mother’s will. In addition, the court held that she was not entitled to claim maintenance and other benefits from his estate. This note critically evaluates the theoretical underpinnings of the court’s findings, with regard to the facts and the evidence in the case.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, University of South Africa
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 3, p. 481-494
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i3a2
In South African Human Rights Commission v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2023 (3) SA 36 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that a bank is not obliged to take a foreclosure matter to the magistrate’s court, even if the magistrate’s court has jurisdiction over the matter. The apex court confirmed that a court is not entitled to decline to hear a matter properly brought before it because another court has concurrent jurisdiction. Before this decision, the Gauteng and Eastern Cape Divisions of the High Court both found that the High Court was entitled to decline to hear a matter if the matter fell within the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court. These decisions were taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which upheld the appeal and found that the High Court has no power to refuse to hear a matter falling within its jurisdiction on the ground that another court has concurrent jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal, finding that complex matters such as foreclosure applications deserve more judicial scrutiny, and ought to be heard by the High Court.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Visiting Scholar, Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 140 Issue 3, p. 495-504
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v140/i3a3
Regulation 18 of the Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons provides for an ownership scheme in reproductive material — eggs, sperm and embryos — outside the human body. Within this regulatory scheme, the following question is pertinent: can ownership of reproductive material, once acquired in terms of reg 18, be transferred to someone else? To answer this question, reg 18 is analysed using well-established tools of statutory interpretation. The conclusion drawn is that a broad interpretation of reg 18 should be followed that allows for the transfer of ownership. Attention is drawn to case law that contradicts this conclusion, but it is shown that the rationale for the relevant decision lacks any depth. Accordingly, the decision should urgently be challenged in the public interest.