The right to privacy as an aspect of consumer protection is a matter which has received little attention in South Africa. The aim of this paper is to consider how the common law action for invasion of privacy may be used as a weapon of consumer protection, and whether it is necessary to supplement it with legislation.
The idea of having citizens aware of their rights and obligations in law is not a new one. But apart from somewhat scattered efforts around the world there has not been, until fairly recently, a concerted effort on a large scale to provide these educational facilities to citizens of a state. On the other hand, enthusiastic suggestions regarding such educational schemes have not been infrequent, as discussed in the article.
In some jurisdictions the terms 'appeal' and 'review' are used synonymously. In the United States of America, for example, an ordinary judicial appeal, i.e. an appeal stricto sensu is sometimes referred to as "appellant review" and the expression 'to review by appeal' is not uncommon i.e. American legal terminology. This practice, which is not confined to the United Stares, is somewhat confusing to lawyers whose systems recognise appeal' and 'review' as separate and distinct remedies. The problem is further complicated by foreign lawyers who often use the terms interchangeably when writing in English. The position in South African law is not without its difficulties. Although South African law acknowledges appeal and review as two quite independent remedies, owing to the incorrect use of the terms in the past only general descriptionptions, and not. precise definitions of the remedies are possible. For the purpose of considering and comparing the subject of this paper, reference is made to the Sri Lankan appellate remedies and the meanings of the terms appeal and review in South African law.
The term, "Justiciable", means "liable to be tried in a court of justice" and it thus relates to jurisdiction. In the conflict of laws it would be the antinomy of substantive law. The point may be illustrated by a comparison of the third and fourth editions of Halsbury's Laws of England setting out the law governing torts. The article explains on the case Buttes v Occidental that the value of the decision lies in the discovery from existing cases of an English law principle, inherent in the very nature of the judicial process and, therefore, not one of discretion that courts will not adjudicate on non-private law transactions by foreign sovereign states. This rule complements the doctrine of immunity.
An opportunity to reflect upon the interaction of banking and criminal law principles has been provided by a recent decision in the High Court of Swaziland. In the case of Rex v Alpheus Dlamini, the Chief Justice of Swaziland, Mr Justice Nathan, sentenced the accused to a fine of E5OO or in default of payment one year's imprisonment. In addition the accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment suspended for three years on condition that he was not found guilty of any offence of which fraud or theft is an element, committed during the period of suspension. In this short article, the author takes issue with the decisions of both the trial and high courts. In particular the author attempts to show that on the basis of the existing criminal law and banking principles, the conviction of the accused as charged was not warranted. Secondly, the author argues that in the special circumstances of the case, the crown could not have secured a conviction on any other basis.
In this contribution the current legal developments in Bophuthatswana, Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa, South West Africa/Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe with regards to principal legislation, government notices and judicial decisions are briefly descriptionbed.