Moodley v Kenmont School and Others (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) [2019] ZACC 37 (9 October 2019)

Reported
Moodley v Kenmont School and Others (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) [2019] ZACC 37 (9 October 2019)

Loading PDF...

This document is 332.5 KB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:
▲ To the top

Cited documents 17

Act
5
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
Repealed
Education · Human Rights · Labour and Employment · Public administration
Proclamation
1
Education · Finance and Money · Labour and Employment · Public administration

Documents citing this one 7

Judgment
7

Customary law – whether the Premier contravened section 21(2)(b) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 when he referred the dispute in respect of the senior traditional leadership to the Commission before the Free State House of Traditional Leaders could deal with the dispute – decision of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Dispute and Claims – whether the Commission had authority to investigate and make recommendations in respect of a dispute which arose after 1 September 1927 in terms of s 25(2)(viii) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Act 23 of 2009 (the Amendment Act) – whether the Commission had authority to deal with the dispute which was submitted to it after six months from the date of coming into operation of the Amendment Act – the Commission had no such authority.

Contempt of court proceedings – failure to comply with court
order – application for declarator to that effect – standard of proof required –
applicant for declarator required to prove non-compliance on a balance of
probabilities – once existence of court order, service thereof and non-
compliance established, respondent bears evidentiary onus to show that non-
compliance neither wilful nor mala fide – respondents failing to discharge
evidentiary onus