Your (un)fair advantage

Law Society of South Africa applies for Leave to Appeal the judgment of 31 March 2010
26/04/2010

On Friday 23 April 2010, the Law Society of South Africa, filed Applications for Leave to Appeal the judgment of Fabricius AJ, handed down on 31 March 2010, at both the North Gauteng High Court, as well as the Constitutional Court.

Dates for the hearing of the Applications for Leave to Appeal have not been allocated yet.

The appeal is directed at the following parts of the judgment:
(a) The finding that section 17(4)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1966 (“the Act”) is not inconsistent with the Constitution and is not invalid.
(b) The finding that section 17(4B)(a) of the Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution and is not invalid.
(c) The finding that section 21 of the Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution and is not invalid.
(d) The finding that Regulation 5(1) made under the Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution and the Act, and is not invalid.

The appeal is based on the grounds that:
(a) Section 17(4)(c) of the Act is irrational and arbitrary, and unjustifiably infringes sections 25 and/or 38 of the Constitution.
(b) Section 17(4B)(a) of the Act is irrational and arbitrary, and unjustifiably infringes sections 25, 27 and/or 38 of the Constitution.
(c) Section 21 of the Act, is irrational and arbitrary, and unjustifiably infringes sections 12, 25, 27 and/or 38 of the Constitution.
(d) Regulation 5(1) is irrational and arbitrary, unjustifiably infringes sections 25, 27 and/or 38 of the Constitution, and is inconsistent with the Act.

  Featured Act Sale of land & failure to comply with ALA
There have been few legislative provisions which have resulted in so much litigation as the provision contained in Section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act.

Briefly, this provision provides that no sale of land will be of any force or effect unless it is contained in a Deed of Sale signed by the parties thereto or their agents acting on their written authority. 		  Featured Case Law Clean up the register before enforcing your design
In an application to the High Court to enforce an order of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it was successfully argued on behalf of the first, second and third respondents, who are our clients, that the proceedings to enforce the order should be stayed until the determination of a pending review application. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal interdicts one of the respondents from infringing a registered design. The pending review application was instituted by another of the respondents. 		  Featured person Featured person
Euphemia Annor
Professional Assistant
Attorney
Tel: +27 (0) 12 432 6031
Email me 		 

View programme


Login screen

The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.