By Duncan Wild on 27 March 2015
In this case, the Constitutional Court held that entities that engage in lending that falls outside the scope of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (“NCA“) (e.g. to entities which exceed the value thresholds set out in the Act) do not need to be registered as credit providers under the NCA, and a failure to register does not invalidate credit agreements outside the scope of the Act. In addition, the Court reversed the current position regarding how the common law in duplum rule applies when litigation commences. The position before this case being that interest may start running again if the creditor institutes action. The Court, however, found that commencing proceedings will not have an effect on the in duplum rule, and interest may not run again. Interest will only run again on a judgment, which effectively is a new debt which restarts any in duplum calculation. Continue reading
On 30 October 2014
The central question in this case is the extent to which the South African Police Service (SAPS) has domestic and/or international law obligations to investigate alleged crimes against humanity, including torture, committed by Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe. The High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) found that, on the facts of this particular case, SAPS were indeed obliged to investigate these allegations.
The Constitutional Court in a unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal by the SAPS and ordered SAPS to investigate the alleged crimes.
By Duncan Wild on 3 October 2014
The primary question in this case was whether a third party can bring a claim against the party to a contract (where the claimant is not a party to the contract) as a result of loss suffered by the third party caused by the intentional repudiation of the contract.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous judgment by Justice Khampepe dismissed the appeal, finding that that cancellation of the contract in question was not wrongful as it did not fit within the existing law concerning interference with a contract, and nor was it necessary to recognise such a claim.
By Duncan Wild on 23 March 2014
The primary question in this case is whether it is appropriate to use the consumer price index (“CPI“) to adjust past loss into present day monetary value for the purposes of financial restitution under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (“the Restitution Act“). A secondary question relates to whether a court can order the State to pay for construction of a memorial plaque as a form of symbolic relief. Continue reading