In South Africa initiates annually go to initiation school. Teenagers are the most vulnerable to initiation. In this article, I scrutinise if the registered or unregistered traditional surgeons of the circumcision schools, who are illequipped to conduct initiation and the subsequent death of initiates could, in principle, be criminally liable or alternatively be charged with common law murder; culpable homicide or assault. I will look into the issue of determining culpability and constitutional perspective as benchmark of the initiate's rights, and lastly, I will make a determination on the legal effects of death as the result of negligent conduct of the traditional surgeons. Since there is no codified law in our jurisprudence, I make recommendation for enactment legislation to curb this unfortunate trend.
Section 65A (1) of the Magistrate's Court Act 32 of 1944, in the District Court, is a procedure in order to inquire into the financial position of such debtor where he or she has not satisfied a judgment for the payment of a sum of money granted against him, and to enable the court to make such an order which has at its aim the settlement of the judgment debt as it may deem just and equitable (see Lombard v Minister Van Verdediging 2002 (3) SA 242 (T) and see also 'The law reports' 2002 (July) DR 43). This procedure could also be used where judgment was granted in another district or the High Court or of a regional court, a copy of the judgments certified by the clerk or registrar of the court that granted the judgment must first be obtained and filed in the court out of which the s 65A, proceedings are to be instituted.
E-mail disclaimers have become so routine and monotonous, often referred to as boilerplate language, that most people do not even notice their existence.Yet, these disclaimers are ubiquitously appended to nearly all outgoing e-mails. The reasons for such inclusion are various: Confidentiality, defamation; unintended contract formation; misdirected e-mails, employee liability, legal privilege; infringement of copyright; and other wrongful acts are a few reasons for its inclusion. Despite its wide use, there is currently no legal doctrine or theory under which an e-mail disclaimer is enforceable in South Africa and nor has it been tested in any South African court.
It is estimated that offences with cyber elements cost South Africa (SA) in excess of R 1 billion a year. In terms of the medium term strategic framework for government for the period 2014 - 2019, insofar as it relates to the outcome 'All people in South Africa are and feel safe' - measures to address cyber security are identified as an area of priority. There are various laws dealing with cyber security, some with overlapping mandates administered by different government departments and the implementation of which is not coordinated. The legislation, which is currently in place, when viewed collectively does not address SA's cyber security challenges adequately.
I refer to the article by Robert dos Santos 'The lazy man's suretyship: Are unlimited debts of limited application?' (2015 (Sept) DR 26). I believe that it is irresponsible to argue in favour of a conclusion and to disguise the flaws in the agreement by suggesting that a commonly and correctly held view is 'questionable' or that 'the possibility arises that... there may be non-compliance'. The author would have us believe that a suretyship in terms of which the surety is liable for 'the due and punctual payment and performance by the debtor of all debts and obligations of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising which the debtor may now or in future owe to the creditor' may not be enforceable because 6 of the General Laws Amendment Act 50 of 1956 (the Act), requires the scope of the surety's obligations to be ascertainable from the document.