PER: 2019 Volume 22
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/32456
2024-03-28T13:12:32ZGongqose v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries–a tale of customary rituals and practices in Marine Protected Areas
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38426
Gongqose v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries–a tale of customary rituals and practices in Marine Protected Areas
Monyamane, Lesetja; Bapela, Mpho P.
The correct application of customary law post constitutionalism continues to be the subject of much judicial and academic deliberation. This is especially true where the existence and/or scope of customary rights and cultural practices are not well defined in a specific case. Gongqose v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2018 5 SA 104 (SCA) presents a perfect example of the dissonance between the recognition of customary law by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and the regulation of rights and cultural practices emanating from customary law. The case grapples with the meeting point of customary rights and customs and the need to preserve the environment. This intersection is considered in view of earth jurisprudence as an emerging legal thought topic in environmental law. On the whole, the decision of the SCA demonstrates encouraging signs of an appreciation of customary law as deserving of an equal place on the legal podium.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZThe "Necessity Test" as expressed by the Enigmatic Article XX(j) of the general agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) : appellate body report, India - certain measures relating to solar cells and solar modules
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38425
The "Necessity Test" as expressed by the Enigmatic Article XX(j) of the general agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) : appellate body report, India - certain measures relating to solar cells and solar modules
Vinti, Clive
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) (GATT) is premised on the elimination of all barriers to trade in goods. Contrary to this approach, Article XX of the GATT authorises the circumvention of this imperative. More specifically, Article XX(j) of the GATT essentially provides that GATT contracting parties are authorised to promulgate measures that are "essential" to the acquisition of products in general or local short supply. This invariably means that only measures that are "essential" will satisfy the "necessity test" contemplated under Article XX(j). The Appellate Body Report, India - Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules is the first World Trade Organisation case to elaborate on the "necessity test" of Article XX(j) of the GATT. This paper seeks to evaluate the Appellate Body's findings on the "necessity test" of Article XX(j).
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZThe right to be granted access over the property of others in order to enter prospecting or mining areas : revisiting Joubert v Maranda Mining Company (Pty) Ltd 2009 4 All SA 127 (SCA)
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38424
The right to be granted access over the property of others in order to enter prospecting or mining areas : revisiting Joubert v Maranda Mining Company (Pty) Ltd 2009 4 All SA 127 (SCA)
Van der Schyff, Elmarie
A new mineral law regime was introduced when the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) commenced. Common law mineral rights were abolished and replaced by statutorily created rights to minerals. Prospecting rights and mining rights granted in terms of the MPRDA entitle their holders, amongst other things, to enter the designated prospecting or mining area in order to commence with and conduct prospecting or mining activities. This contribution focusses on the question whether the entitlement to "enter" the land to which a specific prospecting or mining right relates automatically includes the ancillary right to be granted access over the property of others in order to enter the designated prospecting or mining area. It is important to determine the source or origin of the right to access in the new regime and to differentiate between "access" and "entry". It would not be just or justifiable summarily to accept that legal principles that developed under a completely different regime apply unchanged in a new regime.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZThe question is "should insurers continuously update policyholder records"? insurance law requires the principles of administrative law to settle disputes between the policyholder and the insurer
http://hdl.handle.net/10394/38422
The question is "should insurers continuously update policyholder records"? insurance law requires the principles of administrative law to settle disputes between the policyholder and the insurer
Kilian, N.
It is possible to argue that the Financial Advisory Intermediary Services Ombud (hereafter FAIS Ombud) has jurisdiction to consider insurer's decisions not to update their internal administrative systems. The FAIS Ombud may therefore investigate such matters as a complaint as defined in section 1 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002 (hereafter the FAIS Act). On the other hand, upon any failure to investigate such complaints, the complainant may approach the Financial Services Tribunal, either to give directions to the FAIS Ombud regarding how to investigate the complaint or to replace this failure with the Tribunal's own investigation/reconsideration of a decision as regulated in section 8 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (hereafter the PAJA). An administrative decision is defined in the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 (hereafter the FSRA) which includes the statutory ombud (example, FAIS Ombud) decisions, such as a decision not to investigate a complaint. When an insurer's decision is in fact an administrative decision, reference should also be made to the FSRA, i.e. an insurer's decision to debar an employee/representative or a decision not to update relevant policyholder records with new information. An insurer's decision not to update policyholder records is not part of this statutory regulation (FSRA) of what constitutes an administrative decision; nevertheless the PAJA could still be relevant to understand when these decisions could be considered a public function. Although the latter falls outside the scope of this article, the National Horse Racing Authority of Southern Africa v Cyril Naidoo 2010 3 SA 182 (N) is briefly discussed in this article with reference to a public function. In this article, the failure of the FAIS Ombud to investigate a policyholder's (hereafter client) complaint (the insurer is unwilling to update client records) is an administrative decision and it is specifically regulated by FSRA. For this reason, the relevance of the Financial Services Tribunal is discussed when the FAIS Ombud directs the complaint (or the client may also refer a matter in specific circumstances, as if the FAIS Ombud fails to investigate the matter within a reasonable time) to the Financial Services Tribunal for a reconsideration of the decision.
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z