Get Started
The 2016 film titled Arrival, features a scene where a character called Louise recites to a Chinese army General (General Shang), his dying wife’s last words. It is portrayed that this played the most critical role in his subsequent decision not to go to war against the aliens. War is severe, chaotic and its effects are far reaching for many generations. With the Russia-Ukraine conflict in full scale, most countries in the world are speaking with one voice that a negotiated settlement be pursued.
Read the rest of entry »
Labour and/or employment law litigation requires that disputes, not only be brought within the set time frames before adjudication forums, but also that they be brought before the correct forum. This is important in that jurisdiction is one of the grounds that may be raised as a point in limine (preliminary issues), to have the matter dismissed.
Unlike in civil and criminal proceedings, labour litigation at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) does not always allow the representation of a party by a legal representative. It is thought that the reason for this is so that there is a ‘level playing field’ when the matter is being adjudicated. In this article we will discuss instances where legal representation is permitted or disallowed during CCMA proceedings.
The Department of Health published the amended National Health Act regulations on 15 March 2022, in line with the government’s decision to further manage the Covid-19 pandemic under the National Health Act of 2003. As we might be aware, the pandemic had been managed under the Disaster Management Act of 2002, which provided for the legal framework under which the National State of Disaster was declared in 2020. In his address to the nation on 4 April 2022, the President of South Africa announced the termination of the national state of disaster, citing that the pandemic will be managed under the National Health Act of 2003 (largely, not exclusively).
The armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine has made headlines the world over, and has brought to the fore reflections and deliberations on how international humanitarian law governs armed conflict. The essence of humanitarian law is largely premised on the protection of civilian lives and civilian objects, by placing obligations and restrictions in the way armed combat is executed.
On the 4th of April 2022 the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa announced the termination of the National State of Disaster which had been declared way back in 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The president noted that the regulations that had been put in place thereof had assisted the country to manage the pandemic.
Engaging in a strike by workers usually comes at a cost to the employer one way or the other. It can mean the destruction of property, loss of business revenue and/or damage to the reputation of the business. At the end of the day, employers and employees are urged to find amicable ways of resolving issues that may be in dispute.
Mandatory vaccination is one of the topical issues that has been talked about the most in the past several months. Conversations mainly centre around the constitutionality of having a mandatory national vaccination policy against the backdrop of constitutional rights. The policy of the government with regard to Covid-19 vaccination is that it is voluntary, although people are encouraged to do so. In fact a few days ago, the Deputy President DD Mabuza assured the nation that the policy of the government towards vaccination is that, it will remain as it is (voluntary).
It is trite in legal practice that the Courts pronounce judgments based on the issues and arguments raised before them by the parties. The Court may seek clarity on certain points from the witnesses, legal representatives or the parties themselves, but what the Court will not do is to solicit a specific pleading (point not at issue) from either of the parties alternatively to seek the raising of an issue that has not been raised by either of the parties during the pleadings stage or the trial itself, as doing so would be tantamount to the Court getting involved or taking sides in the matter before it.
Paying less at the till than the displayed price on the shelf is not only pocket friendly, but comes with good feelings too. Some of us have encountered situations where, upon the till operator scanning a product, informs you that the product has actually been marked down and therefore you owe less than what you thought. However, what we may all agree on is that finding out at the till that the product costs more than the displayed price is unacceptable. The question then becomes, which price should you pay?
Bond & Transfer Calculator
Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
Your nickname:
Email address:
Subscribe