This paper discusses a controversial issue in relation to the capability of adolescents to refuse life-saving medical treatment. First, it examines the concept of autonomy and the normative framework for the recognition of the right of the child to consent to and refuse medical treatment under international law. Second, it discusses the provisions of South African law on this issue. The paper then draws on the experiences of the courts in the United States of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) to highlight good practices and to identify the gaps in the approaches adopted. Using Nedelsky’s relational autonomy as a guide, it concludes by arguing that, in all cases, the need for a dialogue between the child and their parents or guardians is important in helping the child to make an informed decision. Such a dialogue should not be viewed as an unnecessary intrusion into the autonomy of the child, but rather as a way to support the decision-making abilities of the child. isiZulu: Leli phepha lidingida udaba okuphikisanwa ngalo maqondana namandla abantu abasha abangaphansi kweminyaka eyishumi nesishiyagalolunye okwenqaba ukwelashwa ngezindlela ezisindisa impilo. Okokuqala, lihlola isihloko sokuzimela kanye nohlaka lwenqubo lokwazisa amalungelo engane okuvuma kanye nokwenqaba ukwelashwa ngokwezempilo ngaphansi komthetho wamazwe ngamazwe. Okwesibili, lidingida izinhlinzeko zomthetho waseNingizimu Afrika ngalolu daba. Leli phepha libe selisusela imininingo kulokho okwenzeke ezinkantolo zase- United States of America (e-US) kanye nase-United Kingdom (e- UK) kugqanyiswa izinqubo ezilungile futhi kuhlonzwe amagebe ezindleleni ezisetshenzisiwe. Ngokusebenzisa i-Nedelsky’s relational autonomy njengomhlahlandlela, liphetha ngokuveza ukuthi, kuzo zonke izigameko, kubalulekile ukuba kube nengxoxo phakathi kwengane nabazali noma abanakekeli bayo ukuze kusizwe ingane ithathe isinqumo esicatshangisisiwe. Leyo ngxoxo akumele ithathwe njengokuphazamisa okungenasidingo ekuzimeleni kwengane, kodwa kunalokho kumele ithathwe njengendlela yokusekela ukuthatha isinqumo sengane.
{"title":"The decision-making power of adolescents to refuse medical treatment in South Africa: Lessons from other jurisdictions","authors":"Ebenezer Durojaye","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a10","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a controversial issue in relation to the capability of adolescents to refuse life-saving medical treatment. First, it examines the concept of autonomy and the normative framework for the recognition of the right of the child to consent to and refuse medical treatment under international law. Second, it discusses the provisions of South African law on this issue. The paper then draws on the experiences of the courts in the United States of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) to highlight good practices and to identify the gaps in the approaches adopted. Using Nedelsky’s relational autonomy as a guide, it concludes by arguing that, in all cases, the need for a dialogue between the child and their parents or guardians is important in helping the child to make an informed decision. Such a dialogue should not be viewed as an unnecessary intrusion into the autonomy of the child, but rather as a way to support the decision-making abilities of the child. isiZulu: Leli phepha lidingida udaba okuphikisanwa ngalo maqondana namandla abantu abasha abangaphansi kweminyaka eyishumi nesishiyagalolunye okwenqaba ukwelashwa ngezindlela ezisindisa impilo. Okokuqala, lihlola isihloko sokuzimela kanye nohlaka lwenqubo lokwazisa amalungelo engane okuvuma kanye nokwenqaba ukwelashwa ngokwezempilo ngaphansi komthetho wamazwe ngamazwe. Okwesibili, lidingida izinhlinzeko zomthetho waseNingizimu Afrika ngalolu daba. Leli phepha libe selisusela imininingo kulokho okwenzeke ezinkantolo zase- United States of America (e-US) kanye nase-United Kingdom (e- UK) kugqanyiswa izinqubo ezilungile futhi kuhlonzwe amagebe ezindleleni ezisetshenzisiwe. Ngokusebenzisa i-Nedelsky’s relational autonomy njengomhlahlandlela, liphetha ngokuveza ukuthi, kuzo zonke izigameko, kubalulekile ukuba kube nengxoxo phakathi kwengane nabazali noma abanakekeli bayo ukuze kusizwe ingane ithathe isinqumo esicatshangisisiwe. Leyo ngxoxo akumele ithathwe njengokuphazamisa okungenasidingo ekuzimeleni kwengane, kodwa kunalokho kumele ithathwe njengendlela yokusekela ukuthatha isinqumo sengane.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution examines the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary unions in South Africa. Bwanya ruled that the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act were unconstitutional to the extent that they failed to include heterosexual life partners as beneficiaries falling within their remit, which violated their right to equality and to dignity. The extent to which life partners’ positions may henceforth be ameliorated by legislative reform is first examined against the backdrop of the Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008, which did not muster support in Parliament. Thereafter, the article discusses what implications the recognition of life partnerships may hold for customary law unions. It is tentatively concluded that it may be that whilst customary unions may continue as a social practice, it may be questioned whether in future there is legal space for them to persist in their current form. Sesotho: Atekele ena e hlahloba ditlamorao tsa Bwanya v The Master of the High Court bakeng sa manyalo a setso Afrika Borwa. Bwanya o ile a diha kahlolo ka hore Intestate Succession Act le Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Act e ne e se molaong ho ya kamoo e ileng ya hloleha ho kenyeletsa balekane ba bong bo fapaneng ba phelang mmoho e le bajamafa ba welang boikarabelong ba bona, e leng se ileng sa hatakela tokelo ya bona ya tekano le seriti. Ho ya kamoo maemo a balekane ba phelang mmoho a ka matlafatswang ho ya pele ka ntjhafatso ya molao ho qala ho hlahlojwa ho itshetlehilwe ka Domestic Partnership Bill ya 2008, e ileng ya se fumane tshehetso ka Palamenteng. Kamora moo, atekele e ile ya tshohla hore ke ditlamorao dife tse ka bang teng tsa ho lemoha dilekane tsa ho phela mmoho bakeng sa manyalo a setso. Ho nkuwa qeto ka lesisitheho hore leha manyalo a setso a ka nna a tswela pele jwalo ka tlwaelo setjhabeng, ho ka nna ha ba le dipotso hore ebe nako e tlang ho na le sebaka sa ona molaong hore a nne a tswele pele ka tsela eo a ntseng a etsa nakong ya jwale.
这篇文章探讨了Bwanya诉高等法院院长案对南非习惯婚姻的影响。Bwanya裁定《无遗嘱继承法》和《赡养未亡配偶法》是违宪的，因为它们没有将异性生活伴侣作为其管辖范围内的受益人，这侵犯了他们的平等权和尊严权。今后，立法改革能在多大程度上改善生活伴侣的地位，首先是在2008年《国内伙伴关系法案》(Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008)的背景下进行审查，该法案没有得到议会的支持。此后，本文讨论了承认终身伴侣关系对习惯法上的结合可能产生的影响。暂定的结论是，虽然习惯的结合可能会继续作为一种社会实践，但未来是否有法律空间让他们坚持目前的形式可能会受到质疑。Sesotho: Atekele ena e hlahloba ditlamorao tsa Bwanya诉高等法院院长bakeng sa manyalo a setso africa Borwa。遗嘱继承Bwanya o ile diha kahlolo ka霍瑞法案le维护未亡配偶法案e ne e se molaong ho丫kamoo e ileng丫hloleha ho kenyeletsa balekane英航bong bo fapaneng英航phelang mmoho e le bajamafa英航welang boikarabelong英航博纳,e愣se ileng sa hatakela tokelo丫博纳丫tekano来自勒。2008年《同居伴侣条例草案》通过，《同居伴侣条例草案》通过，《同居伴侣条例草案》通过，《同居伴侣条例草案》通过。Kamora moo，这是一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西，是一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西，一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西，一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西，一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西，一种叫做“卡莫拉莫”的东西。我知道我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字是什么，我的名字。
{"title":"What are the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary law?","authors":"Julia Sloth-Nielsen","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a6","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution examines the implications of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court for customary unions in South Africa. Bwanya ruled that the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act were unconstitutional to the extent that they failed to include heterosexual life partners as beneficiaries falling within their remit, which violated their right to equality and to dignity. The extent to which life partners’ positions may henceforth be ameliorated by legislative reform is first examined against the backdrop of the Domestic Partnerships Bill of 2008, which did not muster support in Parliament. Thereafter, the article discusses what implications the recognition of life partnerships may hold for customary law unions. It is tentatively concluded that it may be that whilst customary unions may continue as a social practice, it may be questioned whether in future there is legal space for them to persist in their current form. Sesotho: Atekele ena e hlahloba ditlamorao tsa Bwanya v The Master of the High Court bakeng sa manyalo a setso Afrika Borwa. Bwanya o ile a diha kahlolo ka hore Intestate Succession Act le Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Act e ne e se molaong ho ya kamoo e ileng ya hloleha ho kenyeletsa balekane ba bong bo fapaneng ba phelang mmoho e le bajamafa ba welang boikarabelong ba bona, e leng se ileng sa hatakela tokelo ya bona ya tekano le seriti. Ho ya kamoo maemo a balekane ba phelang mmoho a ka matlafatswang ho ya pele ka ntjhafatso ya molao ho qala ho hlahlojwa ho itshetlehilwe ka Domestic Partnership Bill ya 2008, e ileng ya se fumane tshehetso ka Palamenteng. Kamora moo, atekele e ile ya tshohla hore ke ditlamorao dife tse ka bang teng tsa ho lemoha dilekane tsa ho phela mmoho bakeng sa manyalo a setso. Ho nkuwa qeto ka lesisitheho hore leha manyalo a setso a ka nna a tswela pele jwalo ka tlwaelo setjhabeng, ho ka nna ha ba le dipotso hore ebe nako e tlang ho na le sebaka sa ona molaong hore a nne a tswele pele ka tsela eo a ntseng a etsa nakong ya jwale.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution investigates the role of the Constitutional Court in advancing and promoting women’s rights and proprietary interests in the customary law of marriage. This entails a critical discussion of a number of seminal cases decided by the court in the last couple of years, presented in chronological order. These cases are Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa, Ramuhovhi v President of the Republic of South Africa and Sithole v Sithole. All these cases have shifted the traditional customary law proprietary rights and interests of women in monogamous and polygamous customary marriages. In Gumede the Constitutional Court did not make a decision on s 7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 and its application in the context of polygamous customary marriages, preferring to refer the issue to the legislature. Therefore, this contribution also briefly considers the notion of judicial deference. The Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act is also briefly considered as it was intended to give practical effect to the court’s decisions in Gumede and Ramuhovhi; however, the Amendment Act still fails to provide much-needed practical guidelines. Xitsonga: Vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi lavisisa xiave xa Khoto ya Vumbiwa eka ku antswisa na ku kondletela timfanelo ta vavasati na mitsakelo ya vun’wini bya nhundzu eka nawu wa xintu wa vukati. Leswi swi khumba nkanelo wa vukhensivusoli wa milandzu leyi nga na nhlohlotelo yo tala leyi bohiweke hi khoto eka malembe mangarimangani lama nga hundza, leyi andlariweke hi ku landzelelana. Milandzu leyi i Gumede loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya Afrika-Dzonga, Ramuhovhi loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya Afrika-Dzonga na Sithole loko a tengisana Sithole. Milandzu leyi hinkwayo yi cincile timfanelo na mitsakelo swa vun’wini bya nhundzu bya nawu wa xintu xa ndhavuko swa vavasati eka vukati bya xintu bya nuna un’we na nsati un’we na vukati bya tshengwe. Eka Gumede Khoto ya Vumbiwa a yi tekangi xiboho hi mayelana na xiyenge xa 7(1) xa Nawu wa ku Tekeriwa Enhlokweni ka Vukati bya Xintu wa 120 wa 1998 na matirhiselo ya wona eka mbangu wa vukati bya xintu bya tshengwe, yi hlawule ku kongomisa mhaka leyi eka huvo yo endla milawu. Hikokwalaho, vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi tlhela byi tekela enhlokweni mhaka ya ku tshikela rhavi rin’wana leri nga enawini matimba ya vuavanyisi. Nawu wa Hundzuluxo wa ku Tekeriwa Enhlokweni ka Vukati bya Xintu wu tlhela wu langutisisa hi ku komisa tanihileswi wu endleriweke ku humelerisa hi ndlela yo endla swiboho swa khoto eka Gumede na Ramuhovhi; hambiswiritano, Nawu wa Hundzuluxo wa ha hluleka ku nyika swiletelo swo endla leswi dingiwaka swinene.
这篇文章调查了宪法法院在推进和促进妇女权利和婚姻习惯法中的所有权利益方面的作用。这需要对法院在过去几年中判决的一些具有重大意义的案件进行批判性的讨论，并按时间顺序提出。这些案件是Gumede诉南非共和国总统案、Ramuhovhi诉南非共和国总统案和Sithole诉Sithole案。所有这些案件都改变了传统习惯法中一夫一妻制和一夫多妻制习俗婚姻中妇女的所有权和利益。在古梅德，宪法法院没有就1998年第120号《承认习惯婚姻法》第7(1)条及其在一夫多妻习惯婚姻方面的适用作出决定，而宁愿将这个问题提交立法机关。因此，这篇文章也简要地考虑了司法服从的概念。还简要审议了《承认习惯婚姻修正法》，因为它的目的是使法院在Gumede和Ramuhovhi案中的判决具有实际效力;然而，《修正案》仍然未能提供急需的实用指导方针。Xitsonga: Vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi lavisisa xiave xa Khoto ya Vumbiwa eka ku antswisa na ku kondletela timfanelo vavasati na mitsakelo ya vun 'wini bya nhundzu eka nawu wa xintu wa vukati。Leswi swi khumba nkanelo wa vukhensivusoli wa milandzu leyi nga na nhlohlolotelo o tala leyi bohiweke hi khoto eka malembe mangarimangani lama nga hunza, leyi andlariweke hi ku landzelelana。Milandzu leyi i Gumede loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya africa - dzonga, Ramuhovhi loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya africa - dzonga Sithole loko a tengisana Sithole。Milandzu leyi hinkway(意大利)是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明，是一种文明。Eka Gumede Khoto ya Vumbiwa a yi tekangi xiboho hi mayelana na xiyenge xa 7(1) xa Nawu wa ku Tekeriwa enlokweni ka Vukati bya xintuu ' a tshengwe, i hlawule ku kongomisa mhaka leyi Eka huvo yo endla milawu。Hikokwalaho, vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi tlhela byi tekela enhlokweni mhaka丫ku tshikela rhavi rin 'wana leri nga enawini matimba丫vuavanyisi。Nawu wa Hundzuluxo wa ku Tekeriwa enlokweni ka Vukati bya Xintu wu tlhela wu langutisisa hi ku komisa tanihileswi wu endleriweke ku humelelisa hi and lendla swboho ka Gumede na Ramuhovhi;hambiswiritano, Nawu和Hundzuluxo是，hluleka ku nyika swilet - swilet - swilet - swendla - dingiwaka swenene。
{"title":"The active role of South Africa’s Constitutional Court in advancing women’s rights and proprietary interests in the customary law of marriage","authors":"Ebrezia Johnson","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a3","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution investigates the role of the Constitutional Court in advancing and promoting women’s rights and proprietary interests in the customary law of marriage. This entails a critical discussion of a number of seminal cases decided by the court in the last couple of years, presented in chronological order. These cases are Gumede v President of the Republic of South Africa, Ramuhovhi v President of the Republic of South Africa and Sithole v Sithole. All these cases have shifted the traditional customary law proprietary rights and interests of women in monogamous and polygamous customary marriages. In Gumede the Constitutional Court did not make a decision on s 7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 and its application in the context of polygamous customary marriages, preferring to refer the issue to the legislature. Therefore, this contribution also briefly considers the notion of judicial deference. The Recognition of Customary Marriages Amendment Act is also briefly considered as it was intended to give practical effect to the court’s decisions in Gumede and Ramuhovhi; however, the Amendment Act still fails to provide much-needed practical guidelines. Xitsonga: Vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi lavisisa xiave xa Khoto ya Vumbiwa eka ku antswisa na ku kondletela timfanelo ta vavasati na mitsakelo ya vun’wini bya nhundzu eka nawu wa xintu wa vukati. Leswi swi khumba nkanelo wa vukhensivusoli wa milandzu leyi nga na nhlohlotelo yo tala leyi bohiweke hi khoto eka malembe mangarimangani lama nga hundza, leyi andlariweke hi ku landzelelana. Milandzu leyi i Gumede loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya Afrika-Dzonga, Ramuhovhi loko a tengisana na Phuresidente wa Rhiphabuliki ya Afrika-Dzonga na Sithole loko a tengisana Sithole. Milandzu leyi hinkwayo yi cincile timfanelo na mitsakelo swa vun’wini bya nhundzu bya nawu wa xintu xa ndhavuko swa vavasati eka vukati bya xintu bya nuna un’we na nsati un’we na vukati bya tshengwe. Eka Gumede Khoto ya Vumbiwa a yi tekangi xiboho hi mayelana na xiyenge xa 7(1) xa Nawu wa ku Tekeriwa Enhlokweni ka Vukati bya Xintu wa 120 wa 1998 na matirhiselo ya wona eka mbangu wa vukati bya xintu bya tshengwe, yi hlawule ku kongomisa mhaka leyi eka huvo yo endla milawu. Hikokwalaho, vuhoxaxandla lebyi byi tlhela byi tekela enhlokweni mhaka ya ku tshikela rhavi rin’wana leri nga enawini matimba ya vuavanyisi. Nawu wa Hundzuluxo wa ku Tekeriwa Enhlokweni ka Vukati bya Xintu wu tlhela wu langutisisa hi ku komisa tanihileswi wu endleriweke ku humelerisa hi ndlela yo endla swiboho swa khoto eka Gumede na Ramuhovhi; hambiswiritano, Nawu wa Hundzuluxo wa ha hluleka ku nyika swiletelo swo endla leswi dingiwaka swinene.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is a story of my academic journey. It is a reflection on my career, highlighting the barriers and opportunities in the development of my institutional leadership, research and teaching career. It also provides glimpses, first, of how my research interests were developed and the factors that influenced my development as an academic and, secondly, of strategies adopted for the development of human capital to ensure the continuation of scholarship in the field of my work in future generations. Finally, the paper outlines the challenges I identified and engaged with in my research in the broad field of family law, including the law governing the institution of marriage and its dissolution, and their respective consequences, as well as the law governing inheritance under both common law or received law and customary law, and the legalised pluralism that this entails.
{"title":"A reflection on my academic career","authors":"Chuma Himonga","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a11","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a story of my academic journey. It is a reflection on my career, highlighting the barriers and opportunities in the development of my institutional leadership, research and teaching career. It also provides glimpses, first, of how my research interests were developed and the factors that influenced my development as an academic and, secondly, of strategies adopted for the development of human capital to ensure the continuation of scholarship in the field of my work in future generations. Finally, the paper outlines the challenges I identified and engaged with in my research in the broad field of family law, including the law governing the institution of marriage and its dissolution, and their respective consequences, as well as the law governing inheritance under both common law or received law and customary law, and the legalised pluralism that this entails.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is an appreciation of the influence of Chuma Himonga’s work on my research and that of many other academic writers. It begins with a discussion of Himonga’s contribution to a greater understanding of the importance of taking into account the lived realities of the communities to which reformed laws apply. Thereafter, the article takes stock of the practical implementation of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 in addressing the conflicts between customary laws and women’s rights in a customary marriage context. The article considers Himonga’s contribution to the greater understanding of this reality by analysing the courts’ jurisprudence. The final section of this paper suggests that Himonga’s thesis, in which she cautions against the danger of reducing reformed laws into ‘paper law’, has a universal appeal. In particular, I argue that her thesis provides useful insights into the best practical approaches to resolving conflicts between customary rules and practices and human rights. Afrikaans: Hierdie artikel is ’n evaluering van die invloed van Chuma Himonga se werk op my navorsing en dié van talle ander akademiese skrywers. Dit begin met ’n bespreking van Himonga se bydrae tot ’n groter begrip van die belangrikheid daarvan om die geleefde realiteite in ag te neem van die gemeenskappe waarop hervormde wette van toepassing is. Daarna evalueer die artikel die praktiese implementering van die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike 120 van 1998 om die konflik tussen gewoontereg en vroue se regte in die konteks van gebruiklike huwelike te hanteer. Die artikel kyk na Himonga se bydrae tot die groter begrip van hierdie realiteit deur die howe se regspleging te ontleed. Die finale gedeelte van hierdie dokument stel voor dat Himonga se tesis, waarin sy waarsku teen die gevaar om hervormde wette as ‘papierwette’ te aanvaar, ’n universele aantrekkingskrag het. Ek redeneer in die besonder dat haar tesis nuttige insig verskaf in die beste praktiese benaderings om konflik tussen gewoonteregreëls en praktyke en menseregte op te los.
这篇文章是为了感谢丘马·希蒙加的作品对我的研究以及其他许多学术作家的研究产生的影响。它首先讨论了Himonga对更好地理解考虑到改革后的法律适用的社区的生活现实的重要性的贡献。此后，本文对1998年第120号《承认习惯法》的实际执行情况进行了评估，以解决习惯法与习惯法婚姻背景下妇女权利之间的冲突。本文通过分析法院的法理学来考虑Himonga对更好地理解这一现实的贡献。本文的最后一部分表明，Himonga的论点具有普遍的吸引力，她在其中警告将改革后的法律减少为“纸面法律”的危险。特别是，我认为她的论文为解决习惯规则和实践与人权之间冲突的最佳实践方法提供了有用的见解。南非荷兰语:Hierdie artikel正在评估van Chuma Himonga的工作，包括我在荷兰语和荷兰语的对话中所做的工作。他说:“这是我第一次见到他，他说:‘我第一次见到你，我第一次见到你，我第一次见到你，我第一次见到你。’”Daarna评估器模具工件模具实践van die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike 120 van 1998年从die konflik tussen gewoontereg在die konteks van Gebruiklike Huwelike hanteer。我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是，我想说的是。她说:“最后一篇论文的题目是‘纸上的‘纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’纸上的’。”研究人员在研究中发现，在营养营养方面，研究人员在研究中发现了一些有益的营养成分，如konflik tussen gewoonteregreëls和其他营养成分。
{"title":"Chuma Himonga’s scholarship on the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998","authors":"Lea Mwambene","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a1","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an appreciation of the influence of Chuma Himonga’s work on my research and that of many other academic writers. It begins with a discussion of Himonga’s contribution to a greater understanding of the importance of taking into account the lived realities of the communities to which reformed laws apply. Thereafter, the article takes stock of the practical implementation of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 in addressing the conflicts between customary laws and women’s rights in a customary marriage context. The article considers Himonga’s contribution to the greater understanding of this reality by analysing the courts’ jurisprudence. The final section of this paper suggests that Himonga’s thesis, in which she cautions against the danger of reducing reformed laws into ‘paper law’, has a universal appeal. In particular, I argue that her thesis provides useful insights into the best practical approaches to resolving conflicts between customary rules and practices and human rights. Afrikaans: Hierdie artikel is ’n evaluering van die invloed van Chuma Himonga se werk op my navorsing en dié van talle ander akademiese skrywers. Dit begin met ’n bespreking van Himonga se bydrae tot ’n groter begrip van die belangrikheid daarvan om die geleefde realiteite in ag te neem van die gemeenskappe waarop hervormde wette van toepassing is. Daarna evalueer die artikel die praktiese implementering van die Wet op Erkenning van Gebruiklike Huwelike 120 van 1998 om die konflik tussen gewoontereg en vroue se regte in die konteks van gebruiklike huwelike te hanteer. Die artikel kyk na Himonga se bydrae tot die groter begrip van hierdie realiteit deur die howe se regspleging te ontleed. Die finale gedeelte van hierdie dokument stel voor dat Himonga se tesis, waarin sy waarsku teen die gevaar om hervormde wette as ‘papierwette’ te aanvaar, ’n universele aantrekkingskrag het. Ek redeneer in die besonder dat haar tesis nuttige insig verskaf in die beste praktiese benaderings om konflik tussen gewoonteregreëls en praktyke en menseregte op te los.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RCMA) contains provisions to ensure equality between the spouses in a customary marriage, the RCMA has serious deficiencies that are detrimental to the weaker party in customary marriages. To rectify the deficiencies in customary marriages and other relationships, the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) are conducting simultaneous investigations into South African marriage law. This article critically discusses the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA to determine whether the proposed legislation will address the current deficiencies in the RCMA. As an alternative to the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA, the deregulation of customary marriages is advanced as a solution to the inequitable position of spouses in customary marriages under the RCMA. isiNdebele: Nanyana umThetho wokwAmukela imiTjhado yesiNtu we-120 ka-1998 (Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA)) umumethe iindinyana zokuqinisekisa ukulingana phakathi kwabalingani emtjhadweni wesintu, i-RCMA inokutlhayela okukhulu okulimaza ihlangothi elibuthakathaka emitjhadweni yesintu. Ukulungisa ukutlhayela lokho emitjhadweni yesintu kanye nobunye ubudlelwano, iKomitjhini yokuBuyekezwa kwemiThetho yeSewula Africa (South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC)) kanye nomNyango wezangeKhaya (Department of Home Affairs (DHA)) benza iphenyo ngesikhathi sinye mayelana nomthetho wemitjhado weSewula Afrika. I-atikili le ihlathuthula kabanzi ngeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne-DHA kobana kuthathwe isiqunto sokobana ingabe umthetho ohlongozwako uzokuqalana nokutlhayela kwagadesi okuku-RCMA. Njengenye indlela yeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne- DHA, ukuqedwa kwemithetho yemitjhado yesintu kuthuthukiswe njengesisombululo sobujamo bokungalingani kwabalingani emitjhadweni yesintu ngaphasi kwe-RCMA.
{"title":"Gender equality in customary marriages: Is the deregulation of customary marriages the solution?","authors":"Pieter Bakker","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a7","url":null,"abstract":"Although the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (RCMA) contains provisions to ensure equality between the spouses in a customary marriage, the RCMA has serious deficiencies that are detrimental to the weaker party in customary marriages. To rectify the deficiencies in customary marriages and other relationships, the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) are conducting simultaneous investigations into South African marriage law. This article critically discusses the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA to determine whether the proposed legislation will address the current deficiencies in the RCMA. As an alternative to the proposals of the SALRC and the DHA, the deregulation of customary marriages is advanced as a solution to the inequitable position of spouses in customary marriages under the RCMA. isiNdebele: Nanyana umThetho wokwAmukela imiTjhado yesiNtu we-120 ka-1998 (Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (RCMA)) umumethe iindinyana zokuqinisekisa ukulingana phakathi kwabalingani emtjhadweni wesintu, i-RCMA inokutlhayela okukhulu okulimaza ihlangothi elibuthakathaka emitjhadweni yesintu. Ukulungisa ukutlhayela lokho emitjhadweni yesintu kanye nobunye ubudlelwano, iKomitjhini yokuBuyekezwa kwemiThetho yeSewula Africa (South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC)) kanye nomNyango wezangeKhaya (Department of Home Affairs (DHA)) benza iphenyo ngesikhathi sinye mayelana nomthetho wemitjhado weSewula Afrika. I-atikili le ihlathuthula kabanzi ngeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne-DHA kobana kuthathwe isiqunto sokobana ingabe umthetho ohlongozwako uzokuqalana nokutlhayela kwagadesi okuku-RCMA. Njengenye indlela yeemphakamiso ze-SALRC ne- DHA, ukuqedwa kwemithetho yemitjhado yesintu kuthuthukiswe njengesisombululo sobujamo bokungalingani kwabalingani emitjhadweni yesintu ngaphasi kwe-RCMA.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the birth registration process of children born in South Africa to undocumented migrants. Birth registration is an important stepping-stone to acquiring nationality in terms of South African law. Children born to undocumented migrants face a greater risk of statelessness. Given the detrimental consequences of statelessness, the article explores the relationship between the best interests of the child principle (found in international law and the South African Constitution) and the domestic birth registration process for children born to undocumented migrants. In terms of international law, all children have a right to be registered at birth. The findings show that despite this obligation, the birth registration process imposes an onerous set of requirements on undocumented migrants. By using the best interests of the child principle as a substantive right, a procedural right and an interpretative principle, the article shows that the current birth registration process places an inordinate reliance on documentary evidence, which can frustrate the registration of the child’s birth. The article concludes with recommendations which reimagine a birth registration process for children born to undocumented migrants. siSwati: Le-athikili ihlatiya inchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwebantfwana labatalelwe eNingizimu Afrika batalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Kubhaliswa kwekutalwa kusinyatselo lesibalulekile sekutfola buve ngekwemtsetfo waseNingizimu Afrika. Bantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave babhekene nengoti lenkhulu yekungayindzawo nemphilo. Uma kubukwa imiphumela lelimatako yekungayindzawo nemphilo, le-athikili ihlola kuhlobana lokukhona phakatsi kwenzuzo lencono kakhulu yemgomosisekelo wemntfwana (lotfolakala kumtsetfo wemave kanye nakuMtsetfosisekelo waseNingizimu Afrika) kanye nenchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwasekhaya kwebantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Ngekwemtsetfo wemave, bonkhe bantfwana banelilungelo lekubhaliswa mhla batalwa. Lokutfolakele kukhombisa kutsi nangetulu kwalesibopho, inchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa ibeka luhla lolumatima lwetidzingo kubantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Ngekusebentisa kuzuza lokuhle kwemgomosisekelo njengelilungelo lemuntfu ngekwemtsetfo, lilungelo lenchubo kanye nemgosisekelo wekuhumusha, le-athikili ikhombisa kutsi inchubo lekhona yekubhalisa kutalwa incike kakhulu tikwebufakazi lobubhaliwe, lokungaphazamisa kubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwemntfwana. Le-athikili iphetsa ngetincomo leticabanga kabusha ngenchubo yekubhaliswa kwebantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa.
{"title":"The right of children born to undocumented migrants to have their best interests given paramount importance: Reimagining the South African birth registration process","authors":"Rowan Fortuin, Salona Lutchman","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a9","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the birth registration process of children born in South Africa to undocumented migrants. Birth registration is an important stepping-stone to acquiring nationality in terms of South African law. Children born to undocumented migrants face a greater risk of statelessness. Given the detrimental consequences of statelessness, the article explores the relationship between the best interests of the child principle (found in international law and the South African Constitution) and the domestic birth registration process for children born to undocumented migrants. In terms of international law, all children have a right to be registered at birth. The findings show that despite this obligation, the birth registration process imposes an onerous set of requirements on undocumented migrants. By using the best interests of the child principle as a substantive right, a procedural right and an interpretative principle, the article shows that the current birth registration process places an inordinate reliance on documentary evidence, which can frustrate the registration of the child’s birth. The article concludes with recommendations which reimagine a birth registration process for children born to undocumented migrants. siSwati: Le-athikili ihlatiya inchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwebantfwana labatalelwe eNingizimu Afrika batalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Kubhaliswa kwekutalwa kusinyatselo lesibalulekile sekutfola buve ngekwemtsetfo waseNingizimu Afrika. Bantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave babhekene nengoti lenkhulu yekungayindzawo nemphilo. Uma kubukwa imiphumela lelimatako yekungayindzawo nemphilo, le-athikili ihlola kuhlobana lokukhona phakatsi kwenzuzo lencono kakhulu yemgomosisekelo wemntfwana (lotfolakala kumtsetfo wemave kanye nakuMtsetfosisekelo waseNingizimu Afrika) kanye nenchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwasekhaya kwebantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Ngekwemtsetfo wemave, bonkhe bantfwana banelilungelo lekubhaliswa mhla batalwa. Lokutfolakele kukhombisa kutsi nangetulu kwalesibopho, inchubo yekubhaliswa kwekutalwa ibeka luhla lolumatima lwetidzingo kubantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa. Ngekusebentisa kuzuza lokuhle kwemgomosisekelo njengelilungelo lemuntfu ngekwemtsetfo, lilungelo lenchubo kanye nemgosisekelo wekuhumusha, le-athikili ikhombisa kutsi inchubo lekhona yekubhalisa kutalwa incike kakhulu tikwebufakazi lobubhaliwe, lokungaphazamisa kubhaliswa kwekutalwa kwemntfwana. Le-athikili iphetsa ngetincomo leticabanga kabusha ngenchubo yekubhaliswa kwebantfwana labatalwa bantfu labachamuka kulamanye emave labangenato tincwadzi tekutalwa.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article uses a series of judgments to highlight that the review or appeal courts’ strict and formalistic application of the competency test and s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has been as detrimental to the rights and interests of vulnerable complainants as the contested rules themselves. The article examines matters where review or appeal courts set aside rape convictions because magistrates failed to conduct the competency test properly. It argues that, while the courts could not avoid setting aside the wrongful convictions, this should not have led to a compromise of vulnerable complainants’ right to protection. In addition to setting the convictions aside, the higher courts should have adopted an approach that helped to mitigate the risks faced by the complainants. Therefore, the article suggests that higher courts which are called upon to decide such matters should use the following approach in the future. First, they should use the results of the competency test as an item of evidence and should evaluate the reliability of the complainants’ evidence only at the end of the trial. Where a matter goes on review or appeal because a magistrate failed to conduct the competency test entirely or adequately, the higher courts should evaluate the complainant’s testimony before deciding whether to exclude it. In instances where there is a possibility that the complainant’s testimony is reliable, the higher courts should remit the matter to the magistrate to address the procedural error. However, in instances where the complainant’s evidence is unreliable, and remittal is not possible, the courts should set the conviction aside and assign a social worker to oversee the complainant’s protection after the release of the accused. Setswana: Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele ya dikatlholo go bontsha gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1) ya Molao wa Tsamaiso ya Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi go ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona. Athikele eno e tlhatlhoba dintlha tseo mo go tsona dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di beelang kwa thoko dikatlholo tsa petelelo ka ntlha ya gore magiseterata o reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e nepagetseng. E bolela gore, le fa dikgotlatshekelo di ka se kgone go tila go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo tse di fosagetseng, seno se ne se sa tshwanela go lebisa go tshwaelo ya tshwanelo ya tshireletso ya bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang. Mo godimo ga go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di ne di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o thusitseng go fokotsa dikotsi tse bangongoregi ba neng ba lebane natso. Ka jalo, athikele eno e tshwaela gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo tseo di tshwanetseng go atlhola merero e e jalo di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o latelang mo isagweng. Sa nt
本文使用一系列判决来强调，审查或上诉法院对能力测试和1977年《刑事诉讼法》第51条第164(1)条的严格和形式主义的适用，与有争议的规则本身一样，损害了弱势申诉人的权利和利益。这篇文章探讨了复查或上诉法院因地方法官未能正确进行能力测试而撤销强奸定罪的情况。它认为，虽然法院无法避免撤销错误的定罪，但这不应导致损害易受伤害的申诉人的受保护权。除了撤销定罪外，高等法院本应采取一种有助于减轻申诉人面临的风险的办法。因此，这篇文章建议，将来被要求决定这类事项的高级法院应采用下列方法。首先，他们应将能力测试的结果作为一项证据，并应仅在审判结束时评估投诉人证据的可靠性。如果由于地方法官未能完全或充分地进行能力测试而对某一事项进行审查或上诉，高级法院应在决定是否排除申诉人的证词之前对其进行评估。在申诉人的证词有可能是可靠的情况下，高等法院应将此事转交治安法官处理程序错误。但是，如果申诉人的证据不可靠，且不可能予以减刑，法院应撤销定罪，并指派一名社会工作者在被告获释后监督对申诉人的保护。语:Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele丫dikatlholo去bontsha戈尔dikgotlatshekelo谢霆锋di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko丫bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1)丫Molao wa Tsamaiso丫Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi去ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona。我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是。他说:“我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是。”我的意思是，我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思是我的意思。卡哈洛，这是一个很好的例子，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛，他的名字叫卡哈洛。我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是。我们有更多的例子来说明这个问题，比如，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子，我们有一个很好的例子。我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是说，我的意思是我的意思。我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思是，我的意思。
{"title":"Highlighting the higher courts’ obligation to protect vulnerable groups when magistrates fail to conduct the competency test properly","authors":"Nondumiso Phenyane","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a4","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses a series of judgments to highlight that the review or appeal courts’ strict and formalistic application of the competency test and s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 has been as detrimental to the rights and interests of vulnerable complainants as the contested rules themselves. The article examines matters where review or appeal courts set aside rape convictions because magistrates failed to conduct the competency test properly. It argues that, while the courts could not avoid setting aside the wrongful convictions, this should not have led to a compromise of vulnerable complainants’ right to protection. In addition to setting the convictions aside, the higher courts should have adopted an approach that helped to mitigate the risks faced by the complainants. Therefore, the article suggests that higher courts which are called upon to decide such matters should use the following approach in the future. First, they should use the results of the competency test as an item of evidence and should evaluate the reliability of the complainants’ evidence only at the end of the trial. Where a matter goes on review or appeal because a magistrate failed to conduct the competency test entirely or adequately, the higher courts should evaluate the complainant’s testimony before deciding whether to exclude it. In instances where there is a possibility that the complainant’s testimony is reliable, the higher courts should remit the matter to the magistrate to address the procedural error. However, in instances where the complainant’s evidence is unreliable, and remittal is not possible, the courts should set the conviction aside and assign a social worker to oversee the complainant’s protection after the release of the accused. Setswana: Athikele eno e dirisa metseletsele ya dikatlholo go bontsha gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di dirisa teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e gagametseng le s 164(1) ya Molao wa Tsamaiso ya Bosenyi wa bo51 wa 1977 o nnile kotsi go ditshwanelo le dikgatlhego tsa bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang fela jaaka melawana e e ganetsanang ka boyona. Athikele eno e tlhatlhoba dintlha tseo mo go tsona dikgotlatshekelo tse di tlhatlhobang kgotsa tsa boikuelo di beelang kwa thoko dikatlholo tsa petelelo ka ntlha ya gore magiseterata o reteletswe ke go dira teko ya bokgoni ka tsela e e nepagetseng. E bolela gore, le fa dikgotlatshekelo di ka se kgone go tila go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo tse di fosagetseng, seno se ne se sa tshwanela go lebisa go tshwaelo ya tshwanelo ya tshireletso ya bangongoregi ba ba sa sireletsegang. Mo godimo ga go beela kwa thoko dikatlholo, dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo di ne di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o thusitseng go fokotsa dikotsi tse bangongoregi ba neng ba lebane natso. Ka jalo, athikele eno e tshwaela gore dikgotlatshekelo tse di kwa godimo tseo di tshwanetseng go atlhola merero e e jalo di tshwanetse go dirisa mokgwa o o latelang mo isagweng. Sa nt","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the potential role of cultural vulnerability in matters where heterosexual life partners claim the same spousal benefits under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 and the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The discussion focuses on the differences and commonalities between two judgments, Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) and Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). By comparing the two cases, I speculate that the outcome differs considerably because of the cultural vulnerability of one of the partners in the latter judgment. The inescapable fact is that women, particularly black women, are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of the [non]-recognition of domestic partnerships.1 Sepedi: Sengwalwa se se lekola kgonagalo ya gore khuetšo ya setšo e ka ba e ama dikahlolo, fao molekani yo mongwe magareng ga balekani ba go fapana ka bong bao ba dutšego mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana, a dirago kleimi ya setlwaedi ya dikholego tša molekane wa mohu ka tlase ga Molao wa Tlhokomelo ya Balekani bao ba Phologilego wa 27 wa 1990 le Molao wa Kabelo ya Bajalefa Dithoto ge Mohu a se a Ngwala Wili wa 81 wa 1987. Poledišano ye e šeditše diphapano le ditshwano magareng ga dikahlolo tše tše pedi, ya Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) le ya Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). Ge ke bapetša melato ye ye mebedi, ke naganela gore dipoelo di fapana ka lebaka la khuetšo yeo setšo se bilego le yona, yeo e gateletšego yo mongwe magareng ga balekani kahlolong ya molato wa bobedi. Nnete yeo re ka se e tšhabelego ke gore basadi, kudukudu basadi ba baso, bontši bja bona ba kotsing ya ditlamorago tša go se kgahliše tša go hlolwa ke go se lemogwe ga dikamano tša balekani ba go dula mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana.
本文探讨了文化脆弱性在异性恋生活伴侣根据1990年第27号《未亡配偶赡养法》和1987年第81号《无遗嘱继承法》要求同样的配偶福利时的潜在作用。讨论的重点是Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC)和Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC)两项判决之间的差异和共同点。通过比较这两个案例，我推测，由于后一种判断中一方的文化脆弱性，结果会有很大的不同。不可回避的事实是，妇女，特别是黑人妇女，最容易受到不承认家庭伙伴关系的不利影响Sepedi: Sengwalwa se se lekola kgonagalo丫戈尔khuetšo丫šo e ka英航e ama dikahlolo,粮农组织molekani哟mongwe magareng ga balekani英航去fapana ka保锣英航dutš自我mmogo nako你们telele ba ba nyalana,一个dirago kleimi丫setlwaedi丫dikholego tšmolekane wa mohu ka tlase ga Molao wa Tlhokomelo丫balekani包英航Phologilego佤邦1990年佤邦27日勒Molao wa Kabelo丫Bajalefa Dithoto ge mohu一个se Ngwala哀愁wa 81 wa 1987。Poledišano ye e šeditše diphapano le ditshwano magareng ga dikahlolo tše tše pedi, ya Volks vs Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) ya Bwanya vs The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC)。Ge ke bapetša melato ye ye mebedi, ke naganela gore dipoelo di fapana ka lebaka la khuetšo yeo setšo se bilego le yona, yeo e gateletšego yo mongwe magareng ga balekani kahlolong ya molato wa bobedi。Nnete yeo re ka se e tšhabelego ke gore basadi, kudukudu basadi ba baso, bontši bja bona ba kotsing ya ditlamorago tša go se kgahliše tša go hlolwa ke go se lemogwe ga dikamano tša balekani ba go dula mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana。
{"title":"Cultural vulnerability and judicial recognition of heterosexual life-partnerships in South Africa","authors":"Christa Rautenbach","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a5","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the potential role of cultural vulnerability in matters where heterosexual life partners claim the same spousal benefits under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 and the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. The discussion focuses on the differences and commonalities between two judgments, Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) and Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). By comparing the two cases, I speculate that the outcome differs considerably because of the cultural vulnerability of one of the partners in the latter judgment. The inescapable fact is that women, particularly black women, are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of the [non]-recognition of domestic partnerships.1 Sepedi: Sengwalwa se se lekola kgonagalo ya gore khuetšo ya setšo e ka ba e ama dikahlolo, fao molekani yo mongwe magareng ga balekani ba go fapana ka bong bao ba dutšego mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana, a dirago kleimi ya setlwaedi ya dikholego tša molekane wa mohu ka tlase ga Molao wa Tlhokomelo ya Balekani bao ba Phologilego wa 27 wa 1990 le Molao wa Kabelo ya Bajalefa Dithoto ge Mohu a se a Ngwala Wili wa 81 wa 1987. Poledišano ye e šeditše diphapano le ditshwano magareng ga dikahlolo tše tše pedi, ya Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC) le ya Bwanya v The Master 2021 (1) SA 138 (WCC). Ge ke bapetša melato ye ye mebedi, ke naganela gore dipoelo di fapana ka lebaka la khuetšo yeo setšo se bilego le yona, yeo e gateletšego yo mongwe magareng ga balekani kahlolong ya molato wa bobedi. Nnete yeo re ka se e tšhabelego ke gore basadi, kudukudu basadi ba baso, bontši bja bona ba kotsing ya ditlamorago tša go se kgahliše tša go hlolwa ke go se lemogwe ga dikamano tša balekani ba go dula mmogo nako ye telele ba se ba nyalana.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution recognises different areas of Himonga’s scholarship, particularly her work on the recognition of customary marriages, ubuntu and dispute resolution. In bringing this work together, I suggest that her research on ubuntu – translated into the context of litigation – might provide insights on customary marriage recognition in ways that have not yet been properly explored. This insight is that the way in which legal practitioners have displayed ubuntu (or not) in litigating customary marriage disputes materially affects the ability of the courts to recognise living customary law. Having considered case law, the contribution suggests then that ubuntu should be used, not only as an interpretative tool, but also as a legal principle in guiding the procedure in which disputes are settled. isiXhosa: Eli galelo liqonda imimandla eyahlukeneyo kwinkxasomali yokufunda kaHimonga, ingakumbi umsebenzi wakhe ekuqondweni kwemitshato yesintu, ubuntu kunye nokusonjululwa kweembambano. Ukuhlanganisa lo msebenzi, ndicebisa ukuba uphando lwakhe ku-ubuntu – oluguqulelwe ngomxholo womangalelwano – lungabonakalisa imibono ekuqondweni komtshato wesintu ngeendlela ezingekaphicothwa ngokwaneleyo. Lo mbono kukuba indlela amagosa ezomthetho abonakalisa ngayo ubuntu (okanye akunjalo) ekufakeni isimangalo ngeembambano zomtshato wesintu ngokubonakalayo kuchaphazela isakhono seenkundla ekuqondeni umthetho wesintu okhoyo ekuphileni. Xa kuthathelwa ingqalelo umthetho osekelwe kwimithetho yangaphambili, ngokuphathelele kwigalelo kucetyiswa ukuba kusetyenziswe ubuntu, hayi nje kuphela njengesixhobo sokutolika, kodwa kwakhona njengomgaqo ekukhokeleni inkqubo ekusonjululwa ngayo iimbambano.
{"title":"Transforming litigation in customary marriage disputes: Ubuntu and the responsibility of legal practitioners","authors":"Helen Kruuse","doi":"10.47348/acta/2023/a2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.47348/acta/2023/a2","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution recognises different areas of Himonga’s scholarship, particularly her work on the recognition of customary marriages, ubuntu and dispute resolution. In bringing this work together, I suggest that her research on ubuntu – translated into the context of litigation – might provide insights on customary marriage recognition in ways that have not yet been properly explored. This insight is that the way in which legal practitioners have displayed ubuntu (or not) in litigating customary marriage disputes materially affects the ability of the courts to recognise living customary law. Having considered case law, the contribution suggests then that ubuntu should be used, not only as an interpretative tool, but also as a legal principle in guiding the procedure in which disputes are settled. isiXhosa: Eli galelo liqonda imimandla eyahlukeneyo kwinkxasomali yokufunda kaHimonga, ingakumbi umsebenzi wakhe ekuqondweni kwemitshato yesintu, ubuntu kunye nokusonjululwa kweembambano. Ukuhlanganisa lo msebenzi, ndicebisa ukuba uphando lwakhe ku-ubuntu – oluguqulelwe ngomxholo womangalelwano – lungabonakalisa imibono ekuqondweni komtshato wesintu ngeendlela ezingekaphicothwa ngokwaneleyo. Lo mbono kukuba indlela amagosa ezomthetho abonakalisa ngayo ubuntu (okanye akunjalo) ekufakeni isimangalo ngeembambano zomtshato wesintu ngokubonakalayo kuchaphazela isakhono seenkundla ekuqondeni umthetho wesintu okhoyo ekuphileni. Xa kuthathelwa ingqalelo umthetho osekelwe kwimithetho yangaphambili, ngokuphathelele kwigalelo kucetyiswa ukuba kusetyenziswe ubuntu, hayi nje kuphela njengesixhobo sokutolika, kodwa kwakhona njengomgaqo ekukhokeleni inkqubo ekusonjululwa ngayo iimbambano.","PeriodicalId":90407,"journal":{"name":"Acta juridica (Cape Town, South Africa)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136307222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：