(28 Total References)
The judgment, written by Judge ...
The judgment, written by Judge Fritz Brand, looks in detail at the reasons offered for keeping the civil action and the various arguments for scrapping it.
wrote that the history of the civil action "reveals its archaic origin", disclosing elements of old English law, which suggested that the husband has some "proprietary interest in the person and the services of the wife".
wrote that it seemed the husband in this matter was motivated by anger and a desire for revenge, and that it is likely that this is often the case.
It is also enormously costly to bring such a claim, he
Any damages likely to be awarded pale in comparison with the legal costs involved, making it far beyond the means of most people.
Commenting on the result, the attorney acting for RH said it had been a "long and ugly fight" and that he
was sure his
client, now overseas, would be relieved to hear the outcome.
"That is not the kind of ...
"That is not the kind of submission that I want in my court," presiding judge Fritz Brand said.
Appeal court Judge Fritz ...
Appeal court Judge Fritz Brand held that prosecutorial decisions are in principle reviewable, and that the principle of legality empowers the court to undertake a review of a decision, in this case, not to prosecute.
Turning to the murder and related charges, Brand
found that Chauke's decision to withdraw these charges could not be found to be irrational.
On Murphy's finding that Chauke's failure to proceed with the charges after the inquest constituted an irrational decision, Brand
held that this point had not formed the basis of FUL's review application, so this part of the appeal had to succeed.
But the judge also noted that counsel for the NDPP
conceded that some of the murder and related charges were bound to be reinstated and that the NDPP
would make a decision within two months.
decided not to reinstate all 18 charges, Chauke would have to provide reasons to FUL for this decision.
did not agree with the order of the court to reinstate charges, holding that this constituted "inappropriate transgressions of the separation of powers doctrine".
Thus, a court is precluded from impermissibly assuming the powers of the NDPP
Last year, in the State v ...
Last year, in the State v Humphreys, a case dealing with a minibus taxi driver who drove through a boom-controlled level crossing and collided with a train, which resulted in the deaths of 10 children, Judge Fritz Brand, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Appeal, revisited this concept in a magisterial exposition of the relevant law.
To prove this form of intention, the judge held that the accused must be shown to have subjectively foreseen the possibility of death if he
committed an act that led to someone's death.
In Pistorius's case, he
fired four shots through a bathroom door.
subjectively foresee the possibility of death when he
pulled the trigger?
In the Humphreys case, Brand
said that this form of intention is not tested on the standard of a reasonable person but, rather, on whether a person of normal intelligence would not have so concluded and, further, whether there are any facts to show a reason for his
not sharing this foresight.
Judge Fritz Brand, of South ...
Judge Fritz Brand, of South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal.
The judgment was unanimous.
confirmed that Ramodibedi had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was taken to appoint the tribunal.
said that, given the facts of the case, Ramodibedi "must still persuade us that in all the circumstances the treatment meted out to him was unfair".