Where do we belong? The plight of plaintiffs with small maritime claims

by | Feb 12, 2022 | SALJ, SALJ V139 I1 2022

Where do we belong? The plight of plaintiffs with small maritime claims

Author: Malcolm Wallis

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 205-231
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a7

Abstract

Is a claim falling within the definition of a ‘maritime claim’ in terms of s 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 and also within s 29(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 capable of being pursued in the magistrates’ courts? In World Net Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Donsantel 133 CC & another 2020 (3) SA 542 (KZP) the full court in KwaZulu-Natal held that such claims must be pursued within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the high court. The article submits that this is incorrect and disregards the history of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, amounts pro tanto to an implied repeal of the relevant section of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, and is inconsistent with the principles of statutory interpretation applied by our courts. It urges the Maritime Law Association urgently to seek an opportunity to challenge the decision, which is prejudicial to claimants with small claims arising out of ship-related contracts or delicts.

Book Review: Andrew Stewart, Rosemary Owens, Niall O’Higgins & Anne Hewitt (eds) Internships, Employability and the Search for Decent Work Experience (2021)

by | Feb 12, 2022 | SALJ, SALJ V139 I1 2022

Book Review: Andrew Stewart, Rosemary Owens, Niall O’Higgins & Anne Hewitt (eds) Internships, Employability and the Search for Decent Work Experience (2021)

Author: Johann Maree

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 139 Issue 1, p. 251-257
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i1a9

Abstract

None

Notes: ‘They’re not making land anymore’: A reading of the social function of property in Adonisi

by | Dec 7, 2021 | SALJ, SALJ V138 I4 2021

Notes: ‘They’re not making land anymore’: A reading of the social function of property in Adonisi

Author: Thomas Coggin

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 697-715
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a1

Abstract

In the Western Cape High Court decision of Adonisi, Gamble J framed the prevalence of well-located land scarcity in Cape Town with the phrase, ‘they’re not making land anymore’. In this case note, I present the court’s findings and reasoning in ruling against the Western Cape Provincial Government, and I argue we can read the judgment as an expression of the social function of property through two lenses: first, the manner in which the court situated the dispute within the spatial and historical geography of Cape Town; and, secondly, the way in which it prefaced the use value of property through its emphasis on meaningful participation and on custodianship. Both lenses indicated the duty incumbent on the province as landowner and in service of its obligations under s 25(5) of the Constitution, which are important when resolving similar disputes given the scarred ownership landscape characterising the South African urban and spatial environment.

Notes: Social media firestorms and the protection of smaller enterprises: Ubuntu Baba and Woolworths

by | Dec 7, 2021 | SALJ, SALJ V138 I4 2021

Notes: Social media firestorms and the protection of smaller enterprises: Ubuntu Baba and Woolworths

Authors: Peter Kituri, Andrew Hutchison & James Lappeman

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Attorney of the High Court of South Africa; Associate Professor, Department of Commercial Law, University of Cape Town; Senior Lecturer, School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 715-731
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a2

Abstract

In this note we explore the use of social media as a tool to help small enterprises exert pressure on large corporations. Specifically, we use the case study of a small South African business (Ubuntu Baba) that exerted a powerful non-legal sanction on major retailer Woolworths through social media. This entrepreneur-initiated social media firestorm led to victory in the court of public opinion and a quick settlement. This low-cost option was possibly chosen in the face of the costs and uncertainties of more conventional legal recourse. Small businesses are an important component of the South African government’s strategy for economic development and employment creation, yet the existing laws protecting weaker parties often leave small businesses exposed to corporate power-play. This form of corporate power imbalance is a core theme underlying our case study.

Notes: eThekwini Municipality & others v Westwood Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd: Personal costs against public officials through the lens of Westwood

by | Dec 7, 2021 | SALJ, SALJ V138 I4 2021

Notes: eThekwini Municipality & others v Westwood Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd: Personal costs against public officials through the lens of Westwood

Authors: Max du Plessis & Muhammad Zakaria Suleman

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Counsel, KwaZulu-Natal Bar; Honorary Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Adjunct Professor, Nelson Mandela University; Advocate, KwaZulu-Natal Bar
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 138 Issue 4, p. 731-747
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a3

Abstract

eThekwini Municipality & others v Westwood Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd concerns personal costs orders against public officials. The high court sought to extend itself beyond the merits of a tender dispute in its main judgment by engaging in an inquiry about the officials implicated and whether they should be penalised by way of a personal costs order. In its costs judgment, certain individuals within the eThekwini Municipality were mulcted with personal costs orders. On appeal, a full bench cautioned against a court reaching conclusions about officials too quickly and drawing adverse inferences from facts that are not properly pleaded. This is a judgment that has mapped out the procedural steps necessary to make personal costs orders against public officials.