Get Started
A difference in opinion is sometimes inevitable whenever a decision has to be made jointly amongst a group of people, and often at times this results in confrontations and disputes. In some instances, these disagreements often have to be resolved before the Courts or by any other dispute resolution process available. In most contracts even, parties usually provide for a dispute resolution process should a dispute arise during the currency of the agreement. What happens when, during the administration of a deceased estate, the co-executors do not agree with each other?
The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 sought to formalize and attach legal effect to customary marriages in South Africa, as well as to bring certainty on how such marriages can achieve formal status. Indigenous customs in South Africa are so vast that it would have been difficult to harmonize all of them into one single accepted code. This is evident from the wording of section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The question then becomes, does this pull against legal certainty?
The regulation of customary marriages in South Africa has come a long way, and continues to be on a path of continuous development. Indeed, societal norms and aspirations evolve with time, rendering the necessity for certain rules and principles to adapt to the changing needs of that particular society. In fact, in the landmark case of Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa [2008] ZACC 23 the Court stated that,
The responsibilities and obligations of a Trustee are fiduciary in nature, much in the same way as those of a company director. Trustees ought to conduct themselves in a manner that serves the best interests of the trust and the beneficiaries. Where the conduct of a trustee negates this notion therefore, he/she may be removed from such position.
Claiming from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) is a process fraught with several legal and technical considerations. Aspects related to prescription, the accurate completion of claim forms, the provision of medical and expert records as well as claiming the right amount, become important as they directly affect the prospects of a claim.
Divorces often take a long time to be finalised, especially when contested. This usually translates into a huge financial burden on the shoulders of the spouse with the lesser means. Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules (High Court) provides for interim relief pertaining to the challenge mentioned above, and others as provided in the rule.
On the 20th of October 2021, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) issued BGR 57 to clarify the position on whether, for tax purposes and the calculation of notional input tax deduction, the term ‘consideration’ includes an amount paid or payable as transfer duty when a second-hand fixed property is purchased by a VAT vendor from a non-vendor.
Before we delve much into Binding General Rule (VAT) 57 and its effect, let us give this scenario a bit of context.
Legal discourse in the past year (2021) has been awash with discussions surrounding the issue of mandatory vaccination not only in the workplace, but also in various sectors of the economy. To date the vaccination drive is on voluntary basis for the general populace and some sectors of trade and industry, although the business community has vigorously pushed for the government to consider and pursue policies on vaccine mandates for employees. As per the Occupation Health and Safety Act 93 of 1995 employers have an obligation to ensure and provide a safe working environment.
The prevalence of domestic violence incidences in our society currently, is worrying. A good number of such cases do not get reported due to various dynamics such as the perpetrator threatening the victim, or the victim being persuaded by other family members to not report the perpetrator as he/she is the ‘only bread winner’ in the family. Amidst all this, to have protection order applications being thrown out by the Courts, is not encouraging at all. In this brief article we discuss some factors which may cause a protection order application not to succeed.
For those with pets, one would instantly get a rush of blood to the head seeing their pet loitering in the yard with blood on its mouth. This can mean two things, either the pet got injured or it is the one that inflicted the injury. Both scenarios bring shivers through the spine, but it is the latter that may bring more reason to worry. Am I liable, would be the instant question? Liability in such scenarios – does it automatically kick in?
Bond & Transfer Calculator
Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
Your nickname:
Email address:
Subscribe