ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Private Consulting Forensic Scientist
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 723-728
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a10
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 728-732
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a11
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 733-735
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a12
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 3, p. 736-739
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i3a13
None
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Pretoria; Independent Researcher
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 2, p. 259-273
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i2a1
Alternative dispute resolution is one of the mechanisms envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 to provide consumers with access to cost-effective and speedy redress of consumer disputes. Accredited industry ombuds are one of the fora that give effect to this purpose. However, industry participants are not always willing participants, and may wish to challenge the legitimacy of such fora, particularly where the relevant forum is funded by these industry participants. This makes it challenging to give effect to the provisions of any applicable codes of conduct, and also frustrates the consumer’s pursuit for redress. These issues came to the fore in Consumer Goods and Services Ombud NPC v Voltex (Pty) Ltd [2021] ZAGPPHC 309. In this matter, the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud sought a declaratory order from the court, confirming that its code of conduct was legitimate. The judgment is significant as it has an impact on the enforcement of consumer rights by this ombud, and has wider implications for other current and future accredited industry ombuds.
ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Junior Lecturer in Law, North-West University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 2, p. 274-285
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i2a2
In S v Tshabalala, the Constitutional Court considered an appeal about whether accused persons who were present at a rape scene, but who did not participate in the crime and who neither aided nor abetted the perpetrators, could be found guilty of rape. The court decided this question in the affirmative by developing the commonlaw doctrine of common purpose and extending its application to rape cases. The court said that it did so to remove obstacles caused by patriarchal elements of the common law found in criminal law. The most interesting aspect of the judgment is that the court used feminism as a starting point for understanding the plight of women in rape cases. It affirmed its solidarity with women facing sexual violence and introduced feminist legal theory as a viable jurisprudential consideration in the adjudication of sexual crimes. This note considers the judgment and its implications for South Africa.