Loading PDF...
This document is 1.1 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
27 May 2010 this version
24 May 2010
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 111
Gazette
97By-law
9|
Infrastructure and Transportation
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Public administration
|
|
Energy and Natural Resources
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Public administration
|
|
Infrastructure and Transportation
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
Judgment
4|
Reported
Decree 9 is pre-1994 law but not a provincial Act; High Court’s invalidity order took immediate effect.
* Constitutional law – confirmation jurisdiction – sections 167(5) and 172(2)(a) – when Constitutional Court must confirm High Court declaration of invalidity.* Status of pre-1994 (old-order/TBVC) legislation – indicators: origin, territorial application, and especially post-1994 legislative treatment/endorsement.* Environmental law – Decree 9 (Transkei) – criminalisation of possession of protected wild animal parts and strict liability provision challenged under fair trial/presumption of innocence and equality (section 9).* Incorporation by reference, partial repeal/amendment by Parliament, assignment of executive functions and executive action do not automatically amount to legislative endorsement.
|
|
Reported
A s2(2)(a) certificate is evidentiary, not the sole basis for protecting ownership of escaped game.
* Game Theft Act 105 of 1991 – s 2(1)(a) and s 2(2)(a) – interpretation of deeming provision – certificate by Premier as evidentiary facilitation, not conclusive prerequisite to protection against loss of ownership of escaped game.* Statutory interpretation – deeming provisions construed in context and with regard to legislative purpose; may be rebuttable by other proof.* Common law development – unnecessary to decide where statutory protection resolves ownership dispute.
|
|
Urgent ex parte relief was appropriate and costs awarded; first respondent penalised with attorney-and-client costs for evasive conduct.
* Civil procedure – urgent ex parte relief – rule nisi – availability where imminent harm to private property shown.
* Public gatherings law – Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act does not apply to gatherings regulated by the Regulation of Gatherings Act; no notice given under Regulation of Gatherings Act.
* Costs – discretionary exercise; general costs follow the event; punitive (attorney-and-client) costs awarded for evasive conduct and failure to comply with court processes.
|
|
Reported
An agreement to stage profit-driven physical contests between members of the public is unlawful, unenforceable, and may attract criminal and regulatory scrutiny.
Contract and public policy – agreements to organise profit-driven physical contests between members of the public – consent and assault – distinction between lawful sport and unlawful violent contests – statutory regulation (Boxing Act; Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act) – potential proceeds of unlawful activity/organised crime implications (POCA) – referrals to CIPC and NPA.
|
Act
1|
Uncommenced
Agriculture and Land
·
Arts and Culture
·
Education
·
Finance and Money
·
Infrastructure and Transportation
·
Public administration
|