Issue 1, 2015 Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg - Volume 2015,
Volume 2015 (2015) Volume 2014 (2014) Volume 2013 (2013) Volume 2012 (2012) Volume 2011 (2011) Volume 2010 (2010) Volume 2009 (2009) Volume 2008 (2008) Volume 2007 (2007) Volume 2006 (2006) Volume 2005 (2005) Volume 2004 (2004) Volume 2003 (2003) Volume 2015,
Terughoudingsbevoegdhede en oënskynlike spanning met saaklike sekerheidsregte en pandingsregte
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 1 –25 (2015)
Die gemenereg erken verskillende saaklike sekerheidsfigure wat almal dit gemeen het dat daarmee gepoog word om &apos;n vorderingsreg van &apos;n vorderingsreghebbende teen sy skuldenaar te versterk. Naas die bekende bedonge saaklike sekerheidsregte waaronder verband- en pandreg en die sogenaamde stilswyende sekerheidsregte waaronder die hipoteek van die verhuurder en die terughoudingsbevoegdheid van die retentor, ken die reg ook die pandingsreg of pignus iudiciale wat van regsweë intree wanneer deur tussenkoms van die hof &apos;n eksekusieskuldeiser beslag laat lê op &apos;n bate van sy skuldenaar ten einde die bate per eksekusieveiling te laat verkoop en dan aanspraak te hê om uit die opbrengs van die eksekusieveiling so ver moontlik sy uitstaande vordering teen die eksekusieskuldenaar bevredig te kry. By &apos;n sameloop van mededingende sekerheidsfigure is van wesenlike belang om die juiste voorrangorde voor oë te hou want by &apos;n knapheid aan opbrengs sal slegs dié skuldeiser met die sterkste voorrangposisie die beste kans op volle bevrediging van sy uitstaande vordering hê kragtens die beginsel ius est vigilantibus.
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 26 –38 (2015)
Deeltitelskemas volgens die Chinese reg
Lender liability and fault for deepening insolvency : a comparative analysis
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 39 –58 (2015)
The issue of how companies in a financially difficult position are to be financed is an important but delicate one. The approaching insolvency will undoubtedly require the directors to consider whether an extension to existing finance or new finance is an option. This consideration is fraught with danger, given that many of the responses directors might take, including asset disposals, payment of the most pressing demands, enhancing existing or granting further security in favour of creditors as well as entering into further funding obligations that may invite creditors to impose higher or greater than usual terms as a measure of the heightened risk of lending at the insolvency threshold, may well attract the use of transactional avoidance measures known to most insolvency systems. As an added peril, to continue trading while within sight of the moment of formal insolvency may also attract the application of wrongful or insolvent trading rules, also a feature of many developed legal systems. General misfeasance, of which the above may be particular illustrations, may also attract liability. The justification for the rules dealing with the avoidance of transactions, wrongful trading and misfeasance (more generally) is that continued trading and transacting may have a disadvantageous impact on the position of creditors overall. Thus, directors are to be encouraged to seek help at the earliest opportunity, by engaging turnaround, pre-insolvency and insolvency measures, whichever may be appropriate. Thus, they can avoid exposure to liability and the chances of litigation being brought by an insolvency office-holder keen to ensure that the estate is restored to the position it ought to have been in had these transactions not taken place.
Aanspreeklikheid van kredietverskaffers vir toename in insolvensies : regsvergelykende oorsig
Korporatiewe entiteite maak tradisioneel op twee tipes befondsing staat: ekwiteit en skuld, waarvan laasgenoemde neig om belangriker te wees. Die meeste skuld word opgeloop ingevolge kontraktuele reëlings met geldleners wat tipies met saaklike sekerheid gepaardgaan.
Aangesien hierdie ooreenkomste meestal onder die uiterste voorwaardes ("at arms-length") beding word, kom die kwessie van aanspreeklikheid slegs ter sprake in die geval van gewone kontrakbreuk. Dit is meestal die skuldenaar wat aanspreeklikheid sal opdoen, en wel vir sy versuim om die bedrag terug te betaal of ander verwante verpligtinge na te kom. Hoewel dit nie uitsonderlik is dat die skuldeiser ook vir verbrekings aanspreeklik gehou word nie, is dit meestal in die konteks van &apos;n dispuut oor die skuldeiser se reg om stappe ter afdwinging te neem of om aanspraak te maak op &apos;n reg ingevolge die kontrak. Van tyd tot tyd word die intrekking van krediet, gewoonlik in reaksie op die skuldenaar se versuim, ook bevraagteken, hoewel die meeste regstelsels aanvaar dat beperking van die skuldeiser se reg om dit te doen, kredietverskaffing in die algemeen kan benadeel. Dit is amper ongekend dat die wese van die transaksie, naamlik die feit dat geld voorgeskiet word, tersyde gestel word. Nogtans bestaan die siening in sommige jurisdiksies dat skuldeisers aanspreeklik moet wees vir die inhoud van die finansiële reëlings wat hul met die skuldenaar aangaan. Die argetipe van hierdie situasies is waar die skuldenaar, op aandrang van die skuldeiser, krediet opneem wat uit die aard daarvan buitensporig is of buite verhouding staan tot die skuldenaar se werklike behoeftes of sy vermoë om dit behoorlik aan te wend.
Die weerklanke van wat in die toksiese verbandkrisis in die VSA gebeur het, kan hierin gehoor word. In daardie jurisdiksies wat een of ander vorm van aanspreeklikheid van die skuldeisers erken, is dit dikwels die geval dat die aanspreeklikheid vestig tydens insolvensieverrigtinge waar die skuldenaar of skuldeiser se optrede &apos;n nadelige uitwerking op die posisie van ander skuldeisers gehad het. Inmenging in die bestuur, deelname aan bedrog of misleiding, asook die neem van sekuriteit of waarborge (in omstandighede wat tot voorkeure lei) word almal as regverdiging vir die oplê van sulke aanspreeklikheid gebruik. Die artikel fokus op twee jurisdiksies (die Franse en die Britse) met kontrasterende sienings oor die aanspreeklikheid van skuldeisers en vra die eenvoudige vraag of daar enige punte van ooreenstemming of konvergensie is wat &apos;n indikasie kan wees vir die daarstel van &apos;n gemeenskaplike reël oor aanspreeklikheid van skuldeisers.
The constitutional obligations imposed on a provincial government in instances where a municipality cannot provide basic services as a result of a crisis in its financial affairs
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 59 –75 (2015)
Local community dissatisfaction with provision of services has brought municipalities into the spotlight. Recently, South Africa has witnessed continuous community unrest coupled with destruction of property and loss of life, occurring in the wake of community demand for service delivery. Communities often direct their anger about lack of service delivery at municipalities, which constitute the local sphere of government, despite the fact that there are three spheres of government in the Republic, namely, the national, provincial and local government. Inherent in the three-tiered system of government is the allocation of powers to the different spheres in terms of which certain powers are for the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial government; others are within the concurrent jurisdiction of the national and provincial governments; and local government exercises its powers concurrently with the national and provincial government. The state of municipalities in the Republic indicates that many municipalities are unable to handle their affairs because, among other things, key officials in the municipalities lack appropriate competences and political leadership does not properly understand its role in local government. Moreover, a considerable number of municipalities experience financial difficulties. Accordingly, the state of municipalities in South Africa indicates that many municipalities may not be able to exercise their powers effectively and are, therefore, unable to deliver basic services.
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 76 –93 (2015)
The mandament van spolie is a remedy available in South African law to protect possession of property. The remedy is aimed at ensuring restoration of possession ante omnia in instances of unlawful dispossession. It is not specifically aimed at protecting rights with regard to property; therefore it is generally accepted that courts should disregard the merits of the dispute when deciding whether the remedy should be granted. Considerations other than the remedy&apos;s two requirements are therefore irrelevant in the decision of whether the mandament van spolie is applicable.
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 94 –104 (2015)
Die toepassing van verskillende teorieë vir die beoordeling van die regsposisie van versekerde skuldeisers in &apos;n oorgrens insolvensieprosedure
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 105 –124 (2015)
Die voorkeurorde is die hart en kern van enige insolvensieregstelsel. Hierdie orde bepaal die hiërargie onder skuldeisers in &apos;n finale likwidasie. Woods noem dit die prioriteitsleer (ladder of priorities) en dit is hierdie leer wat bepaal hoe groot die risiko is wat &apos;n skuldeiser neem. Bo-aan die voorkeurorde of prioriteitskema is daardie skuldeisers wat in rem sekuriteitsregte oor &apos;n skuldenaar se bates gevestig het. Diesulkes behou die effektiwiteit van hul sekuriteit gedurende en ten spyte van enige formele insolvensieprosedure wat die skuldenaar ondergaan. Elke insolvensieregstelsel in enige jurisdiksie maak voorsiening vir die "groot prioriteit" ofte wel versekerde skuldeisers. &apos;n Versekerde skuldeiser is dan wel daardie skuldeiser wat &apos;n sekuriteitsbelang in &apos;n spesifieke bate van die skuldenaar het. Daarenteen is &apos;n preferente eis &apos;n onversekerde eis wat uit hoofde van wetgewing voor ander onversekerde eise uitbetaal word - dit is statutêre voorkeure. Die term "voorkeurskuldeisers" sluit die versekerde skuldeisers sowel as die preferente skuldeisers in omdat albei hierdie groepe voorkeur bo die gewone, konkurrente skuldeisers in &apos;n insolvente boedel geniet.
The application of the different theories for evaluating the legal position of preferential creditors in a cross-border insolvency procedure
The different theories, old and new, are investigated because the submission is that these theories as currently applied, underlie the recognition or non-recognition of the rights of the preferential creditors of a specific jurisdiction in the case of a cross-border insolvency procedure. The author takes the view that neither modern universalism nor cooperative territoriality offers a proper solution to the problems that may occur in cross-border insolvency cases. It is submitted that the best solution would be to create a fair, just and effective set of rules on the example of the American Law Institute&apos;s and the International Insolvency Institute&apos;s Principles of Cooperation, to get accepted in any given case and this should be applied universally. However, it is recognized that to be internationally or universally implemented, such an approach will undeniably take too long. The proposal is therefore that, until such rules are established the theory of universal proceduralism with its virtual territoriality linked to reciprocal comity is the most acceptable and fair model to apply. It supports the principle that territorial claims should be respected by limiting the scope of the lex concursus, ensuring that the distribution to creditors in a cross-border insolvency procedure reflects the distribution that creditors would get territorial. This way the relevant distribution scheme is determined by the assets of the estate and the claims against the estate and not by the debtor/insolvent. Universal proceduralism is procedurally global and substantively territorial. This means that a centralised insolvency procedure occurs within the debtor&apos;s centre of main interests that controls all procedures relating to the insolvency. However, the choice of law should be decentralized, whereby the substantive aspects of the insolvency proceedings are determined by the ordinary choice of law principles.
Fraud and forgery of the testator&apos;s will or signature : the flight from formalities to no formalities
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 125 –152 (2015)
Krediethersiening, gemeenskap van goed en bestorwe boedels : aantekeninge
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 153 –159 (2015)
Die Nasionale Kredietwet 34 van 2005 (die kredietwet) het ongetwyfeld &apos;n reuse impak op kredietverskaffing in Suid-Afrika gehad sedert sy inwerkingtreding op 1 Junie 2007. Dit is duidelik uit die hoeveelheid gerapporteerde regspraak oor die wet asook die berg akademiese literatuur wat reeds oor die wet gepubliseer is. Die wet het ook al drie keer &apos;n draai voor die konstitusionele hof gemaak. Daar is min twyfel dat die wet broodnodig was om die vorige kredietwetgewing op datum en in ooreenstemming te bring met soortgelyke wetgewing elders in die wêreld. Die wet wat deur &apos;n buitelander geskryf is, is deurspek met konstruksies wat vreemd is aan die Suid-Afrikaanse reg of wat getuig van onkunde van die Suid-Afrikaanse privaatreg. Die wet is dus met reg ook al reeds deur die hoogste hof van appèl gekritiseer as onduidelik of onseker in baie opsigte (Nedbank Ltd v The National Credit Regulator 2011 4 All SA 131 (HHA) 136). Dit het aanleiding gegee tot heelwat regspraak wat moes poog om uitleg aan die wet te gee.
Brown v Board of Education 1954-2014 : sixty years of unfulfilled expectations : aantekeninge
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 160 –170 (2015)
Brown v Board of Education (347 US 483 (1954)) is seen to be one of the most significant - if not the most significant - cases the United States supreme court has decided. In the Brown case the United States supreme court dramatically expanded the constitutional protections of individual liberties and minority rights. In this case the supreme court held that the "separate but equal doctrine" upheld by the court in Plessy v Ferguson (163 US 537 (1896)) was untenable and could be sustained only by accepting the view that African-Americans were inferior. The groundwork was laid for ending the "separate but equal" doctrine in public education.
The role of the judge under the rule of law : aantekeninge
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 170 –177 (2015)
Address delivered in Dutch at the opening of the new building of the Faculty of Law at the Radboud University Nijmegen, 28 August 2014. The original style of the address is retained.
Hands on or hands off? The constitutional court&apos;s denial of a provincial municipal planning role
Habitat Council v Provincial Minister of Local Government, Western Cape 2013 6 SA 113 (WCC)
Minister of Local Government, Western Cape v The Habitat Council (City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality Amicus Curiae) 2014 5 BCLR 591 (CC) : regspraak
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 178 –188 (2015)
"The judicialization of foundational nation-building processes", Hirschl writes, "is common in fragmented polities facing deep ethnic, linguistic and religious cleavages that may result in political crises of ungovernability or threats of political breakdown" (Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (2004) 172). "Nation-building" in this context includes the evolving allocation of legislative and executive authority amongst different spheres of government (Hirschl 183), and the judicialization of this process occurs when the players in government turn toward the courts as the major forum for settling disputes rather than solving them through political means. The recent flowering of jurisprudence on the interpretation of "municipal planning" in part B of schedule 4 to the constitution evidences the increasing judicialization of co-operative government and intergovernmental relations in South Africa, notwithstanding the constitution&apos;s direction that co-operation between the national, provincial and local spheres entails "avoiding legal proceedings against one another" (s 41(1)(h)(vi)).
Delikseis deur derde party weens kontrakbreuk
Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development 2014 2 SA 214 (HHA) : regspraak
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 188 –197 (2015)
In ons reg word algemeen aanvaar dat die opsetlike bemoeiing met &apos;n kontraktuele verhouding deur &apos;n vreemdeling (derde party of buitestander) tot die kontrak wat daartoe lei dat &apos;n kontraksparty nie die prestasie verkry waarop hy ex contractu geregtig is nie, of dat sy kontraktuele verpligtinge verswaar word, in beginsel die Aquiliese aksie fundeer (sien Minister for Safety and Security v Scott  ZASCA 84 par 28; Neethling en Potgieter Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Deliktereg (2010) 326 ev; Loubser en Midgley (reds) The Law of Delict in South Africa (2012) 234-237; Van der Merwe Die Beskerming van Vorderingsregte uit Kontrak teen Aantasting deur Derdes (1959) passim; Zimmermann The Law of Obligations (1996) 1036 ev oor die teenoorgestelde posisie in die Romeinse reg; Von Bar en Drobnig The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe. A Comparative Study (2004) 211 ev oor die swewende posisie in die meeste Europese jurisdiksies). Die mees voorkomende wyse handel oor opsetlike bemoeiing wat tot gevolg het dat een van die kontrakspartye kontrakbreuk pleeg ("inducement to breach of contract"). In Atlas Organic Fertilizers (Pty) Ltd v Pikkewyn Ghwano (Pty) Ltd 1981 2 SA 173 (T) 202 stel die hof dit so: "A delictual remedy is available to a party to a contract who complains that a third party has intentionally and without lawful justification induced another party to the contract to commit a breach thereof."
The application of the mandament van spolie to constitutional and statutory rights
City of Cape Town v Strümpher 2012 4 SA 207 (SCA) : regspraak
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 197 –205 (2015)
Like Roman-Dutch law, modern South African property law draws a distinction between petitory and possessory remedies. As Kleyn has pointed out, petitory remedies (iudicium petitorium) are those that are aimed at protecting a person&apos;s right to a thing, while possessory remedies (iudicium possessorium) are not. Instead, they are aimed at protecting a person&apos;s factual possession of a thing (see Kleyn "Possession" in Zimmermann and Visser Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common Law in South Africa (1996) 818 821).
Boedelbereddering en sekerheidsregte - &apos;n vreedsame afweging van botsende belange?
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Ndlovu 2013 JDR 2436 (GNP) (ongerapporteer) : regspraak
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015, pp 206 –218 (2015)
Die primêre funksie van die reg is om na &apos;n afweging van die potensieel botsende belange van die onderskeie strydende partye en ander potensiële belanghebbendes só reg te spreek dat eierigting ontmoedig word en &apos;n vreedsame samelewing met regsekerheid moontlik is. In die Suid-Afrikaanse samelewing word van oudsher &apos;n hoë premie geplaas op die beskerming van die belange van &apos;n kredietverskaffer en word voorsien dat indien die skuldenaar in gebreke bly om sy opvorderbare skuld te vereffen die skuldeiser met tussenkoms van die hof die skuldenaar kan uitwin ten einde uit die opbrengs van die uitgewinde bates van die skuldenaar sy uitstaande vordering te bevredig. Nieteenstaande sommige vreemdsoortige statutêre nuutreëlings soos dié vervat in artikels 129 en 130 van die Nasionale Kredietwet 34 van 2005 of die Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming 68 van 2008 word steeds as premis daarvan uitgegaan dat &apos;n skuldenaar met sy hele boedel aanspreeklik is ter vervulling van al sy prestasieverpligtinge. Die voorkeurposisie wat in die geval van sommige skuldeisers verleen word ten einde as skuldeiser met sekuriteit &apos;n voorkeurposisie te beklee, neem nie weg dat alle skuldeisers met &apos;n opvorderbare en bewysbare vordering met tussenkoms van die hof &apos;n eksekusiebevel kan bekom en uit die opbrengs van die daaropvolgende eksekusieverkope sy vordering as pandingsreghebbende of houer van &apos;n pignus iudiciale kan bevredig nie.
Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2015 (2015)
They say a good workman doesn&apos;t blame his tools. But neither does he go out to buy a new hammer for every new task. Grogan&apos;s Workplace Law, which has reached the milestone of an eleventh edition, is the trusty hammer that no labour practitioner should misplace. I must admit from the outset that I hold a particular bias in favour of Workplace Law. It is the book from which I was taught labour law as an undergraduate student and also from which I lectured labour law.