Related documents
- Is amended by Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Amendment Act, 1981
- Is amended by Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Amendment Act, 2007
- Is amended by Transfer of Powers and Duties of the State President Act, 1986
- Is commenced by Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972: Commencement
Loading PDF...
This document is 8.2 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
27 March 2009 amendment not yet applied
03 October 1986 amendment not yet applied
11 March 1981 amendment not yet applied
01 January 1973
02 June 1972 this version
19 May 1972
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 822
Gazette
803By-law
12|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
Public administration
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Uncommenced
Agriculture and Land
·
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Agriculture and Land
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Agriculture and Land
·
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
|
Judgment
6|
Reported
Supplier liable for refund, recall and replacement costs; broad exclusion and indemnity clauses unenforceable against statutory and public policy constraints.
Contract law – incorporation and construction of standard terms; exclusion and indemnity clauses – limits where they negate statutory offences or are contra bonos mores; Sale of goods – delivery of goods different in substance and illegal performance; Remedies – restitution of purchase price and recovery of wasted expenditure for recall and replacement where loss foreseeable; Delict – pure economic loss arising from defective/contaminated product; wrongfulness determined by policy factors (foreseeability, identifiable plaintiffs, indeterminate liability, industry standards, duty to withdraw).
|
|
Reported
Removal of prosecutors for perceived bias must show substantive unfairness; judicial recusal test does not apply to prosecutors.
Criminal procedure – plea under s106(1)(h) – challenge to prosecutor’s title; Apprehension of bias and fair-trial right (s35(3)) — prosecutors’ role distinct from judges; Test for disqualifying prosecutors — Killian test not SARFU judicial-recusal test; Removal of prosecutor does not automatically entitle accused to acquittal under s106(4); Reservation and appeal of question of law under s319/s322 permitted in favour of the State.
|
|
Leave to appeal refused: interim order was interlocutory, not appealable, and respondents lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Interlocutory relief — appealability of interim orders — section 17(1) Superior Courts Act — test for leave to appeal; interim interdicts restraining statutory powers — application of OUTA and separation of powers concerns; timeliness and legal effect of internal appeals under Municipal Systems Act; Review and verification requirements under Regulations 4(4)–(6) of FCD Act; costs against regulator.
|
|
An interim interdict suspending a food trade prohibition order was granted pending compliance investigation, favoring substance over strict technicalities.
Administrative law – interim interdict – municipal regulatory enforcement – suspension of enforcement pending compliance investigation and review – urgency – form versus substance in compliance submissions – right to trade – costs against municipality for technical opposition.
|
|
Good‑faith administrative reliance on reputable foreign certification is not invalidated by later-discovered inaccuracies; appeal dismissed with costs.
Administrative law – reliance on foreign official certification – mixed questions of law and fact – bona fide administrative decision not vitiated by subsequent discovery of incorrect underlying information; review confined to bad faith, gross irregularity or illegality; locus standi and punitive costs.
|
|
Whether substantial and compelling circumstances justified departing from prescribed life sentences for intimate femicide and attempted murder.
* Criminal law – Murder and attempted murder in domestic relationship – proof of dolus eventualis.
* Sentencing – Minimum sentences under s 51(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act – when substantial and compelling circumstances justify departure.
* Mitigation – Role of alcohol intoxication, first‑offender status and remorse in assessing moral blameworthiness.
* Gender‑based violence – judicial obligation to balance deterrence and proportionality; State and regulatory implications (alcohol labelling).
|
Act
1|
Uncommenced
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
Public administration
|