| dc.contributor.author | Chitimira, Howard | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-04T09:29:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-06-04T09:29:04Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Chitimira, H. 2016. Confronting selected difficulties associated with the enforcement of res judicata in South Africa with reference to Samancor v Rham Equipment (532/13) [2014] ZASCA 66. Law, Democracy And Development, 20:215-225. [ URL ] | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1028-1053 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2077-4907 (Online) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ldd.v20i1.12 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/26949 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The doctrine of estoppel is a cornerstone of the judicial systems of several countries, such as, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. This doctrine, inter alia, prohibits a person (asserter) from asserting something contrary to what is implied by the previous action, conduct or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination regarding such action, conduct or statement. In this regard, it must be noted that there are various types and/or principles of estoppel that govern the application and enforcement of estoppel in many jurisdictions. | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | University Of The Western Cape, Faculty Of Law | |
| dc.title | Confronting selected difficulties associated with the enforcement of res judicata in South Africa with reference to Samancor v Rham Equipment (532/13) [2014] ZASCA 66 | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dc.contributor.researchID | 25319655 - Chitimira, Howard | |
