Resume
Summary PBL220 THEME 5 - 12
- Cours
- Établissement
Summary on theme 5 to 12
[Montrer plus]
Vendeur
S'abonner
Gauke107
Avis reçus
Aperçu du contenu
THEME 5 STANDING, RIPENESS AND MOOTNESSSECTION 38 OF THE CONSTITUTION - STANDING
Enforcement of rights
38. Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging
that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed/threatened, & the court may
grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may
approach a court are:
(a) anyone acting in their own interest; (common law position = party approaching
court must own rights)
(b) anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
● Stransham-Ford case: Advocate had terminal cancer, applied for the court to
euthanize him. HIS FAMILY acted on his behalf as he could not act on his own.
(c) anyone acting as a member of,/in the interest of, a group/class of persons; (class
actions)
● General example: People wanted to exclude homeless people from buying
bread. A non-profit organization realized this & applied to the courts to
represent the homeless. The NPO acted in the interest of a group (the
homeless)/a class of persons (the homeless).
(d) anyone acting in the public interest; and (only allowed in Roman law called
actiones popularis - popular action - Sustaining the Wild Coast v Shell)
(e) an association acting in the interest of its members. (Usually political parties)
● Standing relates to the question of whether someone who approaches the court
is the appropriate person or institution to present the matter to the court for
adjudication
● The party in the case must have sufficient interest
● Four Wheel Drive Accessory Distributors CC v Leshni Rattan NO (SCA)
○ Appellant is a person who applies to a higher court for a reversal of a
decision in a lower court (has to do with appeal - SCA)
○ About = Appellant(A) sued the respondent(R), the executrix (female
executor of a will) of the estate of the late Mr Ivin Rattan, in the court a
quo (matter first heard) for an amount of R559 817.45 being the cost of
repairs to a courtesy vehicle owned by Land Rover SA, which was
provided to Mr Rattan. A claimed that it leased the vehicle to Mr Rattan
who undertook to return it in the same condition that he received it. He did
not comply with this obligation. He was shot & fatally wounded by
, unknown persons whilst traveling in the vehicle, which was riddled with
bullet holes.
○ Does the applicant have standing/locus standi?
■ SCA held = that the appellant failed to establish that it bore the risk
of damage to the vehicle & consequently did not have an interest
that entitled it to sue for damages:. it did not prove that Mr
Rattan had concluded the lease agreement.
SECTION 38(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASS ACTION
● Not permissible in common law
● City Council of Pretoria v Walker
○ An important judgment in which the question of class actions was dealt
with
● Ito Trustees for the Time Being of the Children’s Rescue Centre Trust v Pioneer
Food, para 26 discusses the reqs for certification of class action:
○ 1. Existence of a class identifiable by objective criteria
○ 2. Cause of action raising a triable issue
○ 3. Right to relief depends upon determination of issues of fact/law/both,
common to all members of class action
○ 4. Relief sought/damages claimed flowing from the cause of action & are
ascertainable & capable of determination
○ 5. Class action is the appropriate procedure for allocating damages
○ 6. The proposed representative is suitable to be permitted to conduct the
action & represent the class
○ 7. Class action is the most appropriate means of determining the claims of
members
SECTION 38(D) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ANYONE ACTING IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST
● Only allowed in Roman law called actiones popularis (popular action)
● Requirements are: GODNN
○ 1. General nature or otherwise of the interest
○ 2. whether there is another reasonable and effective manner in which the
challenge can be brought
■ e.g. the possibility that specific interest groups may pursue the
matter
○ 3. degree of vulnerability of the people affected
○ 4. nature of the right alleged to be infringed & the consequences of the
infringement
○ 5. nature of the relief requested
, ● Justice Alliance of SA v President of the RSA
○ The issue was that the term of office of a previous Chief Justice was
renewed by the president ito an unconstitutional statute.
○ applicants relied on arguments for:
■ protection of the Constitution
■ respect of rule of law
■ principle of legality
■ protection of the administration of justice
■ independence of the judiciary
■ promotion & protection & advancement of human rights
■ strengthening constitutional democracy
■ promotion of social justice
● Freedom Under Law v Acting Chairperson of the JSC
○ Challenged a decision of the JSC not to take action against Judge
President Hlophe for his alleged gross misconduct
AMICUS CURIAE - INVOLVEMENT IN LITIGATION
● Friend of the court (not a party to proceedings) that assists the court by
furnishing information/arguments = impartial advisor to a court of law
● Hoffman v SA Airways Para 64
○ amicus assists the court by:
■ furnishing information/arguments against questions of law/fact
■ is not a party to litigation but believes that the court’s decision may
affect its interests
■ it joins in the proceedings to assist the court because of its
expertise on/interest in the matter before the court
● Do NOT say that an amicus curiae has standing due to not being a party to the
proceedings
○ They are friends of the court
○ Not a party to the proceedings
○ Assists the court in furnishing information/arguments
RIPENESS
● Ripeness is focused on the ‘timing’ of a matter when it is brought to court.
● Cases have to be ‘ripe’ enough to sit before a court for adjudication, anytime
before that the case is ‘green’/‘unripe’.
● It involves the inability to bring a premature matter before the court.
● What does a case that’s ripe look like?
, ○ There must be an actual dispute - meaning the matter that is brought
before court cannot be in the abstract/hypothetical, it must feature
individuals at loggerheads with one another.
○ Where the matter is dealing with members of the same organization, all
internal remedies must be exhausted by the time they approach the court.
○ A case that is ‘green’/brought to a court prematurely has not fulfilled the
above reqs.
MOOTNESS
● Refers to redundancy in bringing the matter to court = the dispute that was up
for decision has lapsed
● When mootness will occur
○ If a problem could be solved without the need of the court to rule on the
matter = it is moot
○ If no substantive change can come from the court deciding on a matter, it
is moot. In other words, would there be a practical effect of the court
coming to a decision? If not, the matter is moot.
● Ngema v Post Office Retirement Fund
○ the alleged unconstitutional legislative provision which was the reason for
the dispute was corrected before the trial by way of an amendment of the
legislation
● Wiese v Government Employee Pension Fund 2012
○ This case was not heard since it was. The court nevertheless made a cost
order in favour of the applicant who appears to have a sound case to
present.
THEME 6 & 7 INTERPRETATION
It must be stressed that Banathi placed great emphasis on the Purposive interpretation,
but during consultations he told me that we must be able to distinguish between the
different theories of interpretation.
INTERPRETATION STTRP HGC
1. Purposive interpretation(PI) ● The PI which requires the interpreter ito section
39(1)(a) to:
○ Promote the values that underlie an open &
democratic society based on human
dignity, equality and freedom
● Effect must be given to the purpose of the
provision under consideration
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur Gauke107. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €5,42. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?
4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)
75323 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours
Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans