Singapore

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire van Overdijk ◽  
Terence Seah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
State Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Court Order ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Singapore is a common law country. Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court (High Court and Court of Appeal) and the State Courts (District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts). Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Transfer of Mental Capacity Proceedings to District Court) Order 2010, proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act (cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) (‘MCA’) are now first heard by the District Court.

New Zealand

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Ward ◽  
Gledhill Kris
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Family Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Court Of Appeal

New Zealand is a common law country. The judicial structure is the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, which are appellate courts only; the High Court, which hears appeals from District Courts in some situations but is also a court of first instance; the District Court, which is principally a court of first instance but also hears appeals from some Tribunals; and various Tribunals. There is also a Family Court, in which warranted District Court judges sit, and which—along with the High Court—deals with adult protection matters.

A Note on Mandela v Executors, Estate Nelson Mandela 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) and the Conundrum around the Customary Marriage between Nelson and Winnie Mandela

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipho Stephen Nkosi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
High Court ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The note is about the appeal lodged by the late Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to the SCA against the decision of the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha, dismissing her application for review in 2014. In that application, she sought to have reviewed the decision of the Minister of Land Affairs, to transfer the now extended and renovated Qunu property to Mr Mandela and to register it in his name. Because her application was out of time, she also applied for condonation of her delay in making the application. The court a quo dismissed both applications with costs, holding that there had been an undue delay on her part. Mrs Mandela then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, for special leave to appeal the decision of the court a quo. Two questions fell for decision by the SCA: whether there was an unreasonable and undue delay on Mrs Mandela’s part in instituting review proceedings; and whether the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The SCA held that there was indeed an unreasonable delay (of seventeen years). Shongwe AP (with Swain, Mathopo JJA, Mokgothloa and Rodgers AJJA concurring) held that the fact that there had been an undue delay does not necessarily mean that an order for costs should, of necessity, particularly where, as in this case, the other litigant is the state. It is the writer’s view that two other ancillary points needed to be raised by counsel and pronounced on by the Court: (a) the lawfulness and regularity of the transfer of the Qunu property to Mr Mandela; and (b) Mrs Mandela’s status as a customary-law widow—in relation to Mr Mandela.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

scholarly journals Disclosure in Centre for Child Law v the Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Tsele
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
High Court ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Children's Interests ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

When a party refers to evidentiary material in the course of litigation, ordinarily this party is under an obligation to make this evidence available to his opponent, particularly when called upon to do so. However, over the years various principles have developed which make this obligation subject to certain limitations. The Fochville cases dealt with a situation where a party to litigation sought to withhold certain information from its adversary, notwithstanding the fact that the material had been relied upon as a ground for the institution of the litigation. This note critiques the judgments of the High Court and in particular the Supreme Court of Appeal in this dispute. In so doing, it draws on useful foreign law to argue that the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment was an unfortunate one in that the court failed to clarify with reasonable precision the circumstances in which a party to litigation involving children's interests may legitimately resist disclosing evidence to his adversary, in which the party resisting disclosure invokes the principle of public interest immunity. In this regard, the note concludes that the High Court's overall approach to the issue is to be preferred.       

scholarly journals Kekuatan Pembuktian Fotokopi Surat yang Tidak Dapat Dicocokkan dengan Aslinya dalam Perkara Perdata

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-352
Author(s):  
Devina Puspita Sari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
High Court ◽  
Original Letter ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Opposing Party ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Valid Evidence

The photocopy acceptable in the court if it matched with the original letter and the strength of that photocopy is the same as the original letter. However, sometimes the original letter has been lost so that it cannot be shown at trial. This paper discusses whether a photocopy that cannot be matched with the original letter can be accepted in the civil procedural law and if it can be accepted how the strength of it, then the discussion will look at the judge’s consideration in two cases related to the issue. The results of discussions are that photocopies that cannot be matched with the original letter can be accepted as evidence if the photocopy matches or is strengthened with other evidence, as the jurisprudence of Decision Nr. 112 K/Pdt/1996 and Decision Nr. 410 K/pdt/2004. The jurisprudence has been followed by similar cases, which is the Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court Nr. 164/Pdt.G/2004/PN.Jkt.Pst jo. Decision of The Jakarta High Court Nr. 234/Pdt/2005/PT.DKI jo. Decision of The Supreme Court Nr. 1498 K/Pdt/2006 which in this case a photocopy can be accepted because it is strengthened by the recognition of the opposing party and The Pontianak District Court Nr.52/Pdt.G/2003/PN.Ptk which received a photocopy because it was strengthened with  witness testimony. The photocopy has a free power of proof (depends on the judge’s assessment). The use and assessment of the strength of the photocopy cannot be independent, but must be linked to other valid evidence. Abstrak Fotokopi surat dapat diterima dalam persidangan apabila dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya, dan kekuatan pembuktiannya sama seperti surat aslinya. Tulisan ini membahas, dalam hal surat aslinya tidak dapat ditunjukkan di persidangan, apakah fotokopi surat dapat diterima dalam pembuktian hukum acara perdata, dan, apabila dapat diterima, bagaimanakah kekuatan pembuktiannya. Artikel ini menunjukkan, fotokopi surat yang tidak dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya dapat diterima sebagai alat bukti surat jika bersesuaian atau dikuatkan dengan alat bukti lain, sebagaimana Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 112 K/Pdt/1996 dan Putusan Nomor 410 K/pdt/2004 yang telah menjadi yurisprudensi. Yurisprudensi ini telah diikuti dalam perkara serupa, yaitu dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 164/Pdt.G/2004/PN.Jkt.Pst jo. Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta Nomor 234/Pdt/2005/PT.DKI jo. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1498 K/Pdt/2006, di mana dalam perkara ini fotokopi surat dapat diterima karena dikuatkan dengan pengakuan pihak lawan. Demikian juga dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pontianak Nomor 52/Pdt.G/2003/PN.Ptk, yang menerima fotokopi surat yang tidak dapat dicocokkan dengan aslinya karena dikuatkan dengan alat bukti keterangan saksi. Dengan demikian, fotokopi surat memiliki kekuatan pembuktian yang bebas, artinya diserahkan kepada penilaian hakim. Penggunaan dan penilaian kekuatan pembuktian fotokopi tersebut tidak dapat berdiri sendiri, tetapi harus dikaitkan dengan alat bukti lainnya yang sah.  

scholarly journals The Law Regarding Pension Interest in South Africa has been settled! Or has it? With Reference to Ndaba v Ndaba (600/2015) [2016] ZASCA 162

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Motseotsile Clement Marumoagae
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Golden Opportunity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article reflects on the law relating to pension interest in South Africa. In particular, it assesses whether the Supreme Court of Appeal in Ndaba v Ndaba had adequately clarified how this area of law should be understood. In light of the inconsistent approaches from various divisions of the High Court, it has not always been clear how the courts should interpret the law relating to pension interest in South Africa. In this paper, aspects of this area of law which have been clarified by the Supreme Court of Appeal are highlighted. This paper further demonstrates aspects of this area of law which the Supreme Court of Appeal did not settle and would potentially be subject to future litigation. This paper is based on the premise that while Ndaba v Ndaba is welcomed, the Supreme Court of Appeal nonetheless, missed a golden opportunity to authoritatively provide a basis upon which the law relating to pension interest in South Africa should be understood. 

Presumption of Marriage in Uganda

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
African Countries ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Living Together ◽  
Law And Legislation ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract Case law, amongst other sources, shows that many people in Uganda are living together as husband and wife although they are not married. Unlike legislation in other African countries such as Tanzania and Malawi, in Uganda, the pieces of legislation governing marriages are silent on the issue of presumption of marriage. Likewise, unlike in Kenya and South Africa where legislation does not provide for presumption of marriage but courts have held that such a presumption exists based on long cohabitation, Ugandan courts, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, have held that Ugandan law does not recognise marriage based on long cohabitation (marriage by repute). However, courts will presume the existence of a marriage where a marriage ceremony took place. Since 2003, attempts to enact legislation to provide for the presumption of marriage in Uganda have not been successful. In this article, the author argues that there is still room for the Supreme Court to hold, on the basis of common law, that Ugandan law recognises the principle of presumption of marriage. This recognition would also be in line with Uganda’s international law obligation as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has called upon States Parties to CEDAW to enact legislation giving effect to de facto unions. The author relies on case law and legislation from some African countries to suggest ways in which the Supreme Court could deal with the issue of presumption of marriage.

scholarly journals Urgensi Pembentukan Peradilan Khusus Pemilu dalam rangka Mewujudkan Integritas Pemilu

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Iwan Rois ◽  
Ratna Herawati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
District Court ◽  
Election Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
High Court ◽  
Provincial Level ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Elections

This study aims to analyze the need to establish a special election court which has the authority to solve various election law cases in order to realize elections with integrity; and analyzing the formulation of election special justice in order to realize the integrity of the election. The research method used is the method of normative legal research and the implementation of this research collects data from various sources in order to get an answer to the issues that have been formulated. The results of the study shows that  the purpose of the need for the formation of special judicial elections; First, to meet the growing demands of increasingly complex justice in society and more election law enforcement so as to realize the integrity of the elections; Second, To handle the election law cases quickly and simply so as to obey the integrity of the election. Formulation; First, the election special justice to be able to work quickly and simply in handling election law cases, domiciled at the central and provincial level, then entering the District Court or the High Court; Secondly, the Guidelines for the election special judicial law shall be based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 Year 2017 on Procedures for the Settlement of Administrative Offenses of the General Elections in the Supreme Court. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perlunya membentuk peradilan khusus pemilu yang mempunyai kewenangan menyelesaikan berbagai perkara hukum pemilu agar terwujud pemilu yang berintegritas; dan menganalisis formulasi pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu dalam rangka mewujudkan integritas pemilu. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah metode penelitian hukum normatif dan pelaksanaan dari penelitian ini mengumpulkan bahan hukum dari berbagai sumber guna mendapatkan suatu jawaban atas pokok-pokok permasalahan yang telah dirumuskan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tujuan perlunya pembentukan peradilan khusus pemilu; Pertama, Untuk memenuhi tuntutan perkembangan akan keadilan yang semakin kompleks dalam masyarakat dan lebih penegakan hukum pemilu sehingga mewujudkan integritas pemilu; Kedua, Untuk menangani perkara hukum pemilu dengan cepat dan sederhana sehingga mewudkan integritas pemilu. Formulasi; Pertama, Peradilan khusus pemilu agar bisa bekerja cepat dan sederhana dalam menangani perkara hukum pemilu, berkedudukan di tingkat pusat dan provinsi, selanjutnya masuk pada Pengadilan Negeri atau Pengadilan Tinggi; Kedua, Pedoman beracara pada peradilan khusus pemilu berdasarkan pada Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Cara Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Administratif Pemilihan Umum Di Mahkamah Agung.

Chieftaincy jurisdication and the muddle of constitutional interpretation in Ghana

1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. P. Kludze
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bar Association ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The Supreme Court of Ghana, in The Ghana Bar Association v. The Attorney General, has unanimously decided that, even under the 1992 Constitution, High Court and the Court of Appeal have no jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. Even if this decision itself is correct, it is nevertheless premised on highly questionable legal propositions and dicta which strike at the foundations of several otherwise settled principles and canons of construction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document