This document is 449.9 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 18
Judgment
15|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Contract — breach — oral agreement to negotiate in good faith Pleadings — Ostensible authority — Distinct from estoppel — Not necessary to plead ostensible authority in replication Prescription Act 68 of 1969 — Sections 10(1), 11(d), 129(d) — interpretation of “debt” Constitution — Section 39(2) — Narrow interpretation of “debt” —claim not prescribed |
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
|
Act
3|
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Dispute Resolution and Mediation
·
Human Rights
|
|
Human Rights
|
Documents citing this one 11
Judgment
11|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Asylum seeker applications - effect of delay - relevance of criminal record in South Africa - overriding principle of non-refoulement Delay does not impede right to asylum - only the Refugee Status Determination Officer is authorised to consider application merits - Immigrant Act must be read in harmony with the Refugees Act and international law |
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Section 4 of the Refugees Act— Exclusion — Internal remedies — Unfounded application Section 4(1)(b) of the Refugees Act — Non-political crime — Criteria |
|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Administrative Law — Administrative Action
·
Commercial — Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution — Appeals
·
Commercial — Civil Procedure — Justice and fairness — Procedural Fairness
·
Refugees — Immigration law
|
|
Refugees Act 30 of 1998 — constitutionality of subsections 22(12) and 22(13) — provisions are unconstitutional Failure to renew visa — resulting in deemed abandonment of asylum application — violation of principle of non-refoulement — infringement of right to dignity, right to just administrative action and children’s rights — provisions arbitrary and irrational
|
|
National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (the Air Quality Act) – statutory interpretation – ministerial powers to enact regulations under the Air Quality Act – whether the regulation-making power of s 20 of the Air Quality Act vested the Minister with a discretion to prescribe regulations or imposed a duty to do so – enforcing the Highveld Priority Area Air Quality Management Plan (Highveld Plan) – whether there existed any grounds to interfere with the high court’s discretion in granting a just and equitable remedy |