News > Civil Litigation
 The Molteno Institute for Language and Literacy has announced that it is taking the National Lottery to court over the reversal of a decision to award R20 million per year to the non-governmental organisation (NGO). This comes as just last Friday, hundreds of people representing NGOs took part in a protest march accusing the National Lottery of unfair treatment. |
||
|
||
 In terms of our law and in particular the General Law Amendment Act No. 50 of 1956 (“the Act”) no contract of suretyship shall be valid unless the terms thereof are embodied in a written document signed by or on behalf of the sureties. There are 5 essential terms which need to be contained in a contract of suretyship, namely the identity of the creditor, the debtor, the surety and the nature and amount of the principal debt. Failure to complete the essential terms of the suretyship agreement would mean that the contract would be invalid for failure to comply with the statutory formalities. |
||
|
||
 This was the question which the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to answer in the matter of Delphisure Group Insurance Brokers Cape (Pty) Ltd vs Dippenaar and Others. The first and second respondents in the appeal, Dippenaar and another, were wheat farmers in the Western Cape who instituted a claim against the appellant, Delphisure. The appellant was an insurance broker that sole crop insurance product known as Farmsure. |
||
|
||
|
On 25 November 2010, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in the Law Society of South Africa and 10 others’ constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act of 2005 (“Amendment Act”). |
||
|
||
 On 12 August 2010 the Constitutional Court heard the Law Society of South Africa’s appeal against the judgment and order of Fabricius AJ of the North Gauteng High Court, who on 31 March 2010 dismissed a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996. Judgment was reserved by the Constitutional Court and on 25 November 2010, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment. |
||
|
||
|
In the recent matter of the Road Accident Fund versus Vusumzi Mdeyide, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) held that an appeal against a decision by the Eastern Cape High Court should be upheld and in doing so the CC held that the limitation contained in the RAF Act, to the effect that the right to claim compensation prescribes 3 years after the date upon which the cause of action arose, is reasonable and justifiable under the Constitution. |
||
|
||
 The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in advising the Court on its approach in Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, recently advanced the view that communications between parties and their in-house lawyers should not be afforded the protection of legal professional privilege from disclosure during competition investigations by the European Commission. |
||
|
||
 On 1 March 2010 application was made to the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria by the Law Society of South Africa and ten others (‘the Applicants”) challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005, which came into effect on 1 August 2008. The application was opposed by the Minister of Transport and the Road Accident Fund (“the Respondents”). Judgment was handed down by the then Acting Judge Fabricius on 31 March 2010, dismissing the application with no order as to costs. The Applicants then filed an application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, and this application was set down for hearing on 12 August 2010. The full bench of the Constitutional Court (except for Judge Joffe), not only heard argument by the respective parties relating to the application for leave to appeal, but the merits upon which the judgment in the court a quo was challenged. |
||
|
||
 The North Gauteng High Court on March 31, 2010, dismissed the Law Society of South Africa and other applicants’ constitutional challenge to the new compensation scheme that was introduced by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005. The LSSA and other Applicants launched an application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, against the judgment handed down by Fabricius AJ. It will be heard in August. |
||
|
||
 The Honourable Fabricius AJ handed down judgement in the North Gauteng High court, Pretoria, on 31 March 2010. The noting of the judgement lasted only a few minutes with the judge in summary saying that the application was dismissed save for prayer 18 regulation 6(1) which must be read as meaning in addition to what is required by section 24(1)(b) and no order as to costs was given. The order pertaining to costs in effect means that each party has to bear their own costs in the application. |
||
|
||
 Judgment will be delivered at 10am on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. A court has not yet been allocated. |
||
|
||
 Adv HJ de Waal, acting on behalf of the Respondents, closed his argument, followed by Adv S Budlender who dealt with the Applicants’ attack on the following 5 points: the emergency medical tariff, the time period for lodgement of claims, the place of lodgement, the RAF forms, and the appropriate remedy. |
||
|
||
|
Adv Ncomisa Mayosi, acting for the Applicants started the proceedings by presenting to the court the legal principles applicable to “consultation” or “debate” that the Minister of Transport failed to adhere to before they imposed the UPFS tariff in respect of medical expenses. She indicated that the principles of consultation and debate can be summarised as general and adequate notice to interested parties, consultation with interested parties and a consideration of the suggestions and views of such interested parties. Counsel put to the court that these principles were not met and from this it may be deduced that the amendment was made in light of a pre-conceived scheme. Counsel took the court through the various meetings that were held by the RAF in anticipation of the imposition of the new tariffs and the arbitrary manner in which these new tariffs were decided upon. |
||
|
||
 On Monday 1 March 2010, the constitutional challenge to the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, commenced in the North Gauteng High Court, before Fabricius AJ. The proceedings started with applications by the Ministers of Health and Finance, to intervene in the main application. Both applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. |
||
|
||
 On 24 February 2010 and in the North Gauteng High Court, the Minister of Transport brought an Application for Postponement of the main Application between the parties, in which the Law Society of South Africa and ten others are challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act. The Minister of Transport cited two reasons why the court should grant a postponement of the main application which is set down for hearing for the period of 1 to 3 March 2010. |
||
|
||
|
The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.
