Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2128398
F. Osman, Mathabo Baase
Abstract Same-sex couples in South Africa may conclude marriages and enjoy equal rights as their opposite-sex counterparts. A glaring lacuna in South African law is whether same-sex couples may marry in accordance with customary law with legal force and effect. This article uses desktop research to critically examine whether customary law accommodates same-sex customary marriages and if not, whether customary law should be developed to do so. Despite the popular rhetoric that same-sex relations are ‘un-African’, the article argues that there is an established history of same-sex practices in Africa, and recent media reports point to development in customary law to recognise same-sex marriages. But given the differences in customary law across the country, this may be fiercely contested. Arguably, some versions of customary law do not recognise same-sex marriages. In practice, the courts will have to consider whether to develop customary law to accommodate same-sex customary marriages. The rights of individuals to equality and culture must be balanced against broader understandings of culture and the courts’ role in developing customary law in line with constitutional values. Courts must employ a nuanced development of the law that protects the rights of same-sex couples without undermining customary law.
{"title":"The recognition of same-sex customary marriages under South African customary law","authors":"F. Osman, Mathabo Baase","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2128398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2128398","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Same-sex couples in South Africa may conclude marriages and enjoy equal rights as their opposite-sex counterparts. A glaring lacuna in South African law is whether same-sex couples may marry in accordance with customary law with legal force and effect. This article uses desktop research to critically examine whether customary law accommodates same-sex customary marriages and if not, whether customary law should be developed to do so. Despite the popular rhetoric that same-sex relations are ‘un-African’, the article argues that there is an established history of same-sex practices in Africa, and recent media reports point to development in customary law to recognise same-sex marriages. But given the differences in customary law across the country, this may be fiercely contested. Arguably, some versions of customary law do not recognise same-sex marriages. In practice, the courts will have to consider whether to develop customary law to accommodate same-sex customary marriages. The rights of individuals to equality and culture must be balanced against broader understandings of culture and the courts’ role in developing customary law in line with constitutional values. Courts must employ a nuanced development of the law that protects the rights of same-sex couples without undermining customary law.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46134416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2103025
S. Viljoen
Abstract A wicked problem is identified in South African property law as the inaccessibility of secure land/housing rights for the vulnerable. This problem is contextualised as largely unsolvable when working with reductionist frames, after which the core and extent of the problem is unpacked with reference to two interconnecting regimes, that of land reform and housing. Various aspects of the problem are alluded to in both regimes, not to solve the problem, or aspects thereof, but to focus on underlying forms of state resistance; that is, large-scale governmental resistance to conform to constitutional directives. Such resistance is unpacked by relying on ‘resilient property’, as recently developed by Lorna Fox O’Mahony and Marc Roark, which offers a novel, insightful account of the role of the state’s own need for resilience in determining state responses to complex property problems. Two preliminary signs of resistance – property as sovereignty and economic policy choices – are further analysed to ‘rationalise’ misdirected policy choices, incoherence between policies and laws and what the courts have described as absurd bureaucratic decision-making.
{"title":"Resistance to reform property: A ‘resilient property’ perspective","authors":"S. Viljoen","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2103025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2103025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A wicked problem is identified in South African property law as the inaccessibility of secure land/housing rights for the vulnerable. This problem is contextualised as largely unsolvable when working with reductionist frames, after which the core and extent of the problem is unpacked with reference to two interconnecting regimes, that of land reform and housing. Various aspects of the problem are alluded to in both regimes, not to solve the problem, or aspects thereof, but to focus on underlying forms of state resistance; that is, large-scale governmental resistance to conform to constitutional directives. Such resistance is unpacked by relying on ‘resilient property’, as recently developed by Lorna Fox O’Mahony and Marc Roark, which offers a novel, insightful account of the role of the state’s own need for resilience in determining state responses to complex property problems. Two preliminary signs of resistance – property as sovereignty and economic policy choices – are further analysed to ‘rationalise’ misdirected policy choices, incoherence between policies and laws and what the courts have described as absurd bureaucratic decision-making.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"24 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59284173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2099456
Raisa Cachalia
Abstract In the earlier decision in State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd the Constitutional Court concluded that the legality principle and not the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the PAJA) applies to state self-reviews of administrative decisions. This was justified on the basis that the state, unlike a private litigant, is not a bearer of the right to administrative justice and is, for this reason, prevented from relying on the PAJA to review its own prior decisions (the Gijima principle). The Court, however, stated that its conclusion was limited to instances where a state organ reviews its own decision and acts in its own interest for the purposes of section 38(a) of the Constitution. This note explores the implications of the SCA’s later decision in Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes for the Gijima principle. In substance, Compcare concluded that whenever a state organ seeks the review and setting aside of its own administrative action or that of another state organ, it must rely on the PAJA. This is because it will always be seeking to enforce the right to just administrative action in the public interest in terms of section 38(d) of the Constitution, and never in its own interests for the purposes of section 38(a). Although Compcare was concerned with a scenario that fell outside of the Gijima principle, the principled effect of the judgment is to resuscitate the PAJA in all state self-reviews of administrative actions and in so doing, to defeat the basic premise in Gijima that the state cannot rely on the PAJA.
摘要在国家信息技术机构SOC有限公司诉Gijima控股（私人）有限公司的早期裁决中，宪法法院得出结论，合法性原则而不是2000年第3号《促进行政司法法》（PAJA）适用于国家对行政决定的自我意见。这是合理的，因为与私人诉讼不同，国家不是行政司法权的持有者，因此无法依赖PAJA审查其先前的决定（Gijima原则）。然而，法院指出，其结论仅限于国家机关为《宪法》第38（a）条的目的审查其自身决定并采取符合自身利益的行动的情况。本说明探讨了SCA后来在Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme诉Registrar of Medical Schemes一案中的决定对Gijima原则的影响。从实质上讲，Compcare得出结论，每当一个国家机关寻求审查和撤销其自身或另一个国家机构的行政行为时，它必须依赖PAJA。这是因为它将始终寻求根据《宪法》第38（d）条的规定，为了公众利益，而不是为了第38（a）条的目的，执行公正行政行动的权利。尽管Compcare关注的是吉岛原则之外的情况，但该判决的原则性效果是在所有州对行政行为的自我审查中恢复PAJA，并在这样做的过程中，打破吉岛州不能依赖PAJA的基本前提。
{"title":"Resuscitating the PAJA in state self-review? Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes","authors":"Raisa Cachalia","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2099456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2099456","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the earlier decision in State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd the Constitutional Court concluded that the legality principle and not the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the PAJA) applies to state self-reviews of administrative decisions. This was justified on the basis that the state, unlike a private litigant, is not a bearer of the right to administrative justice and is, for this reason, prevented from relying on the PAJA to review its own prior decisions (the Gijima principle). The Court, however, stated that its conclusion was limited to instances where a state organ reviews its own decision and acts in its own interest for the purposes of section 38(a) of the Constitution. This note explores the implications of the SCA’s later decision in Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes for the Gijima principle. In substance, Compcare concluded that whenever a state organ seeks the review and setting aside of its own administrative action or that of another state organ, it must rely on the PAJA. This is because it will always be seeking to enforce the right to just administrative action in the public interest in terms of section 38(d) of the Constitution, and never in its own interests for the purposes of section 38(a). Although Compcare was concerned with a scenario that fell outside of the Gijima principle, the principled effect of the judgment is to resuscitate the PAJA in all state self-reviews of administrative actions and in so doing, to defeat the basic premise in Gijima that the state cannot rely on the PAJA.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"70 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49391041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2089224
C. Fawole
Abstract The best interests of the child is a key concept in children’s rights law, which is domesticated in part through its expression in s 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This concept is not easy to apply due to its complexity and indeterminate nature. In contrast, a child’s right to participate, another important children’s right, is not included s 28 or elsewhere in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School addressed the important issue of the horizontal application of the Constitution. However, it is the concurring judgment of Khampepe J, which addressed both the best interests of the child and participation in a manner that directs the application of the former and provides a basis for the constitutionalisation of the latter. This note engages with Khampepe J’s judgment to examine its contribution to the substantive application of children’s rights in South Africa, namely, making the best of the best interests of the child by using participation.
{"title":"Making the best of the best interests: A commentary of AB v Pridwin Preparatory School","authors":"C. Fawole","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2089224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2089224","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The best interests of the child is a key concept in children’s rights law, which is domesticated in part through its expression in s 28(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This concept is not easy to apply due to its complexity and indeterminate nature. In contrast, a child’s right to participate, another important children’s right, is not included s 28 or elsewhere in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School addressed the important issue of the horizontal application of the Constitution. However, it is the concurring judgment of Khampepe J, which addressed both the best interests of the child and participation in a manner that directs the application of the former and provides a basis for the constitutionalisation of the latter. This note engages with Khampepe J’s judgment to examine its contribution to the substantive application of children’s rights in South Africa, namely, making the best of the best interests of the child by using participation.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"128 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48219168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2122074
L. Kohn
Abstract The public/private intersection is complex terrain. In this contribution, I seek to provide some conceptual clearing by crafting a four-quadrant typology to aid judicial line-drawing along the spectrum of public and private power. At the centre of these (non-watertight) categories is the realm of administrative action that may thus be subject to review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). Against this backdrop, I reflect upon the development presented in Ndoro v South African Football Association (‘Ndoro’). This case fits within Quadrant 4 of my typology insofar as it pertains to private actors – the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA); the South African Football Association (SAFA); the National Soccer League (NSL); member football clubs; and their players – founded and governed entirely by contract and so exercising (ostensibly) private powers. Notwithstanding these private matters of form, in Ndoro, Unterhalter J persuasively chartered new substantive terrain. Through carefully principled reasoning, he found that ‘what these bodies do and the objects they strive after are public in nature’. To this end, the court brought the applicable powers and functions of these bodies within the scope of PAJA-review proper, rather than simply employing the common-law principles that would normally be used in this context. This raises interesting questions about what public – and indeed, administrative law – is all about, and it lays the groundwork for judicial intervention in the likes of the ‘Jockey Club-type cases’ via PAJA.
{"title":"Private sporting bodies and the ‘supervisory disciplines of public law’: Ndoro v South African Football Association as an apt case study for line-drawing within a four-quadrant typology","authors":"L. Kohn","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2122074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2122074","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The public/private intersection is complex terrain. In this contribution, I seek to provide some conceptual clearing by crafting a four-quadrant typology to aid judicial line-drawing along the spectrum of public and private power. At the centre of these (non-watertight) categories is the realm of administrative action that may thus be subject to review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). Against this backdrop, I reflect upon the development presented in Ndoro v South African Football Association (‘Ndoro’). This case fits within Quadrant 4 of my typology insofar as it pertains to private actors – the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA); the South African Football Association (SAFA); the National Soccer League (NSL); member football clubs; and their players – founded and governed entirely by contract and so exercising (ostensibly) private powers. Notwithstanding these private matters of form, in Ndoro, Unterhalter J persuasively chartered new substantive terrain. Through carefully principled reasoning, he found that ‘what these bodies do and the objects they strive after are public in nature’. To this end, the court brought the applicable powers and functions of these bodies within the scope of PAJA-review proper, rather than simply employing the common-law principles that would normally be used in this context. This raises interesting questions about what public – and indeed, administrative law – is all about, and it lays the groundwork for judicial intervention in the likes of the ‘Jockey Club-type cases’ via PAJA.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"112 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45783192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2115397
Nozuko Twani, C. Soyapi
Abstract There is evidence, past and present, to the effect that local government or municipalities in South Africa do at times renege on and violate their duty to provide basic services to residents within their jurisdiction. In view of this, the paper starts by establishing the links between local government’s constitutional and legislative duties regarding service delivery, and particularly sanitation-service delivery. Once this is clarified, and with a view to demonstrating how civil society and citizens could pursue judicial avenues for the enforcement of their service-delivery rights, the discussion then evaluates past and present case law to determine the extent to which, and the methods through which, courts are holding local governments accountable for failing to deliver on sanitation services.
{"title":"The legal accountability of local government in South Africa for the failure to deliver sanitation services","authors":"Nozuko Twani, C. Soyapi","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2115397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2115397","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is evidence, past and present, to the effect that local government or municipalities in South Africa do at times renege on and violate their duty to provide basic services to residents within their jurisdiction. In view of this, the paper starts by establishing the links between local government’s constitutional and legislative duties regarding service delivery, and particularly sanitation-service delivery. Once this is clarified, and with a view to demonstrating how civil society and citizens could pursue judicial avenues for the enforcement of their service-delivery rights, the discussion then evaluates past and present case law to determine the extent to which, and the methods through which, courts are holding local governments accountable for failing to deliver on sanitation services.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"92 - 111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47321805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-15DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155
Anthea Christoffels-Du Plessis
Abstract
In 2004, artisanal fishers, community-based and non-governmental organisations representing ∼5,000 artisanal fishers from various fishing communities sought relief inter alia under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 as a result of the unfair discrimination against them because of the fisheries legal framework. This case note focuses on this unique class action brought by the fishers in the Equality Court and the decisions resulting from the case. The relief sought by the fishers to remedy the discrimination and inequity was to compel the then Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to make proper and adequate provision for artisanal fishers in terms of the fisheries legal framework, giving them equitable access to marine resources alongside other marine resource users. This note evaluates the impact of the order of the Equality Court, as it served as the trigger to transform small-scale fisheries in South Africa. The note also discusses the human-rights-centred themes reflected in the South African Small-Scale Fisheries Policy and considers the extent to which this policy is aligned to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines of 2015.
{"title":"‘Fishers’ rights are human rights’: George v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2005 (6) SA 297","authors":"Anthea Christoffels-Du Plessis","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p>In 2004, artisanal fishers, community-based and non-governmental organisations representing ∼5,000 artisanal fishers from various fishing communities sought relief <i>inter alia</i> under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 as a result of the unfair discrimination against them because of the fisheries legal framework. This case note focuses on this unique class action brought by the fishers in the Equality Court and the decisions resulting from the case. The relief sought by the fishers to remedy the discrimination and inequity was to compel the then Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to make proper and adequate provision for artisanal fishers in terms of the fisheries legal framework, giving them equitable access to marine resources alongside other marine resource users. This note evaluates the impact of the order of the Equality Court, as it served as the trigger to transform small-scale fisheries in South Africa. The note also discusses the human-rights-centred themes reflected in the South African Small-Scale Fisheries Policy and considers the extent to which this policy is aligned to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines of 2015.</p>","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138532292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2034525
C. Kavuro
Abstract This paper examines the protection of the socio-economic rights and benefits in view of the relief measures taken to alleviate the economic distress caused by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Similar to South African counterparts, refugees and asylum seekers looked up to the South African government for their protection (known as ‘the surrogate national protection’) because they could not turn to their home governments from which they fled for national protection. It considers the divergence between the principles of refugee protection and citizenship, to underline that the South African government has the responsibility to protect refugees and asylum seekers. Drawing upon these principles, the paper analyses the Covid-19 relief packages from the perspectives of the spirits, purport, and objects of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998. In particular, it critically illustrates the conflicted and ambivalent attitudes of the South African government towards the implementation of surrogate national protection in real and actual situations.
{"title":"The Covid-19 pandemic and socio-economic protection for refugees in South Africa","authors":"C. Kavuro","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2034525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2034525","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines the protection of the socio-economic rights and benefits in view of the relief measures taken to alleviate the economic distress caused by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Similar to South African counterparts, refugees and asylum seekers looked up to the South African government for their protection (known as ‘the surrogate national protection’) because they could not turn to their home governments from which they fled for national protection. It considers the divergence between the principles of refugee protection and citizenship, to underline that the South African government has the responsibility to protect refugees and asylum seekers. Drawing upon these principles, the paper analyses the Covid-19 relief packages from the perspectives of the spirits, purport, and objects of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998. In particular, it critically illustrates the conflicted and ambivalent attitudes of the South African government towards the implementation of surrogate national protection in real and actual situations.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"37 1","pages":"466 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44827687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2054979
Elmien (WJ) du Plessis
{"title":"LM du Plessis","authors":"Elmien (WJ) du Plessis","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2054979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2054979","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"103 2","pages":"558 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41281479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/02587203.2022.2043991
Busisiwe Kamolane-Kgadima, Thandeka Kathi, Tebogo Moloko, Zanele Malindi, Rudo T. Mhiribidi, Tshepo Skosana, Adelaide R. Chagopa
Abstract This note provides descriptive statistics on the work of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2020. The statistics are arranged in fifteen tables. The method of constructing each table is given in the text that follows it. The objectives and methods of this annual set of statistics are more fully laid out in the 1995 and subsequent editions of the South African Journal on Human Rights. Section 1 covers those decisions in which the Court produced a written judgment, while Section 2 covers applications that were considered in chambers and dismissed without a judgment being given.
{"title":"Constitutional Court statistics for the 2020 term","authors":"Busisiwe Kamolane-Kgadima, Thandeka Kathi, Tebogo Moloko, Zanele Malindi, Rudo T. Mhiribidi, Tshepo Skosana, Adelaide R. Chagopa","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2043991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2043991","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This note provides descriptive statistics on the work of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 2020. The statistics are arranged in fifteen tables. The method of constructing each table is given in the text that follows it. The objectives and methods of this annual set of statistics are more fully laid out in the 1995 and subsequent editions of the South African Journal on Human Rights. Section 1 covers those decisions in which the Court produced a written judgment, while Section 2 covers applications that were considered in chambers and dismissed without a judgment being given.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"37 1","pages":"566 - 577"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45355524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：