Reports of Cases in Law and Equity Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Vol. 34

1862 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 255
Author(s):  
T. W. D. ◽  
Oliver L. Barbour
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Law in the State Courts in 1925–1926

1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-603
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
The City

Validity of Procedure. In the summer of 1925 the appellate division of the supreme court of New York held that the City Home Rule Amendment of 1923 had not been legally adopted and was invalid. In the case of Browne v. City of New York the court of appeals reversed this decision and held the amendment valid. The chief ground of attack on the amendment was, it is believed, unique. It may be stated as follows: The New York constitution requires an amendment to be proposed by one legislature, approved by the legislature chosen at the next election of senators, and then ratified by the voters. The City Home Rule Amendment was proposed by the legislature of 1922, approved by that of 1923, and ratified at the polls in 1923. It was an amendment to Article XII. But the legislature of 1922 had also approved an amendment to Article XII, relatively trivial in nature, which had originated in the legislature of 1920. This amendment was ratified in November, 1922, and went into effect in January, 1923, before the second legislative approval of the City Home Rule Amendment. In other words Article XII, which the City Home Rule Amendment changed, was not the same when the amendment passed the legislature for the first time as when it passed the second time. The appellate division held not only that the amendment must be the same when passed by the two legislatures but that the provision amended must also be the same.

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.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document