To know your law and not to understand it is like a legal barbarian lost in the battlefield of legal theory. A proper and thorough understanding of the law of evidence and hearsay evidence in particular, is of paramount importance not only for lawyers but also for persons who regard themselves as labour law experts. It takes a great deal of experience before a lawyer truly becomes confident with the law of evidence and its application. The only way one becomes good at it is firstly to know the law. (Where does it come from and why is it there?) Then one must get to understand it by looking at examples and apply it in practice. Only then will a person gain practical experience. The aim of this treatise is not to try and educate experienced lawyers. This article is aimed at those that need some motivation to pursue their journey in the labour law process. Remember we all assume that lawyers know and understand their subject until they proof the contrary. In this work I shall try to highlight the importance of the law of evidence in labour law proceedings. Firstly the meaning of the law of evidence and hearsay evidence is considered. Further emphasis will be on the approach and application of the law of evidence, and in particular the hearsay rule, in labour law proceedings.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Universal jurisdiction is a relatively new concept in South Africa and a rather controversial concept in international criminal law. It is often discussed but rarely applied. Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a State to punish certain crimes irrespective of where they were committed. Such crimes need not be connected to the State in question via the more traditional links of territory, nationality or direct State interest. These crimes are typically the worst crimes in international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The argument goes that those who commit these types of offences become hostis humani generis, or the enemies of all mankind. Therefore just like the pirate of old any nation that captures them is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over them, on behalf of all mankind. But at the same time a feature and founding principle of international law is the sovereign equality of States. And under international law criminal jurisdiction is a prerogative of sovereign States. States have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed within their territory, for having control over a territory is essentially what it means to be sovereign. This means that one nation’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over persons that also fall under the jurisdiction of another nation could be perceived as the undermining of the second nation’s sovereignty. It is submitted that a proper understanding of universal jurisdiction internationally, and in South Africa, is vital because the Constitutional Court recently ordered South African authorities to investigate torture committed by Zimbabwean officials against Zimbabwean citizens that was allegedly committed in Zimbabwe. In other words the court ordered South African authorities to exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwean officials. This thesis has as goal to critically examine the claims made, and authorities, cited in support of universal jurisdiction, as it is believed that these are usually theoretical and unpractical in nature. It is submitted that balance and a measure of realism is imperative to this debate. Contrary to popular opinion, it is submitted, that the history of international relations has not favored universal jurisdiction and there is no indication that this situation has fundamentally changed or will change in the near future. The thesis continues to examine, after a consideration of the likening of pirates to modern international criminals, the claim that old authorities such as Grotius and De Vattel provide support for universal jurisdiction. An analysis follows of the so-called ‘Lotus principle’, which is said to mean that any State may exercise jurisdiction over serious offences because there is no rule prohibiting it. The trials of German war criminals by the Allies, in the aftermath of WWII, is also said to have evidenced universal jurisdiction and this claim is critically examined. The same applies to the trial of Adolf Eichmann by Israel. The examination of provision for universal jurisdiction in international law continues when the jurisdictional provisions of the Genocide, War Crimes and Torture Conventions are examined and specifically applied to South Africa. The drafting process of these Conventions is carefully studied to understand the intention and circumstances prevalent at the time. In the process specific countries and international case law dealing with these Conventions is also considered. The jurisdictional triggers of the International Criminal Court are surveyed and it is questioned whether it provides for universal jurisdiction and whether it can then be said to support member States in exercising universal jurisdiction on its behalf. The research findings on universal jurisdiction and the ICC are finally applied to South Africa especially with reference to the Constitutional Court decision on the torture committed in Zimbabwe before conclusions are drawn as to what South Africa’s international and domestic duties entail. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Universele jurisdiksie is ‘n relatief nuwe konsep in Suid-Afrika en ‘n redelik kontroversiële konsep in internasionale strafreg. Dit word gereeld bespreek maar weinig toegepas. Universele jurisdiksie verwys na die bevoegdheid van ‘n Staat om sekere misdrywe te straf ongeag waar dit gepleeg is. Die betrokke Staat hoef nie enige van die traditionele verbindings soos territorialiteit, nationaliteit of direkte Staats-belang met sodanige misdrywe te hê nie. Hierdie misdade is tipies van die ergste misdade in internasionale reg, soos volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en misdade teen die mensdom. Die argument is dat diegene wat hierdie tipe misdrywe pleeg hostis humanis generis, of vyande van die mensdom word. Daarom, net soos die seerower van ouds, is enige nasie, wat hulle in hegtenis neem geregtig om sy jurisdiksie, namens die ganse mensdom, oor hulle uit te oefen. Maar terselfde tyd is 'n kenmerk en grondbeginsel van internasionale reg die soewereine gelykheid van State. En onder internasionale reg is strafregtelike jurisdiksie 'n prerogatief van soewereine State. State het territoriale jurisdiksie oor misdade wat binne hul regsgebied gepleeg is, want om beheer oor 'n gebied uit te oefen is in wese wat soewerein wees behels. Dus kan een Staat se poging om jurisdiksie uit te oefen oor persone wat ook onder die jurisdiksie van 'n ander Staat val beskou word as die ondergrawing van die tweede Staat se soewereiniteit. Dit word aan die hand gedoen dat 'n behoorlike begrip van universele jurisdiksie, beide internasionaal, en in Suid-Afrika van uiterse belang is, veral omdat die Konstitionele Hof onlangs Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede beveel het dat marteling gepleeg in Zimbabwe, deur Zimbabwiese amptenare, teen Zimbabwiese burgers ondersoek moet word. Die hof het dus beveel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede universele jurisdiksie moet uitoefen oor Zimbabwiese amptenare. Hierdie tesis het ten doel om die gesag gewoonlik genoem, ter ondersteuning van universele jurisdiksie, krities te beskou, veral omdat dit gewoonlik teoreties en onprakties van aard blyk te wees. Hierdie tesis poog om ‘n noodsaaklike balans en mate van realisme tot die debat te voeg. Anders as wat algemeen aanvaar word ondersteun die geskiedenis van internasionale betrekkinge nie universele jurisdiksie nie en is daar ook geen aanduiding dat hierdie situasie onlangs fundamenteel verander het, of in die nabye toekoms sal verander nie. Die tesis beskou voorts, na 'n oorweging van die vergelyking van seerowers met moderne internasionale misdadigers, die bewering dat die ou skrywers soos De Groot en De Vattel hul steun verleen aan universele jurisdiksie. Hierna volg ‘n ontleding van die sogenaamde "Lotus beginsel", wat glo beteken dat enige Staat jurisdiksie mag uitoefen oor ernstige oortredings, bloot omdat daar geen reël is wat dit verbied nie. Die verhore van Duitse oorlogs misdadigers deur die Geallieerdes, na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, word ook dikwels as bewys gebruik van universele jurisdiksie en word ook krities bekyk. Dieselfde geld vir die verhoor van Adolf Eichmann deur Israel. Die voorsiening gemaak vir universele jurisdiksie word verder ondersoek deur te let op die jurisdiksionele bepalings in die Konvensies oor volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en marteling en dit word telkens op Suid-Afrika van toepassing gemaak. Daar word veral noukeurig gelet op die opstel proses van hierdie Konvensies ten einde te bepaal presies wat die bedoeling en heersende omstandighede toe was. In die proses word spesifieke lande en internasionale gesag wat met die Konvensies te make het oorweeg. Die Internasionale Strafhof, en of dit voorsiening vir universele jurisdiksie maak, word ondersoek ten einde te bepaal of dit enigsins gesê kan word dat die Hof lidstate aanmoedig om universele jurisdiksie te beoefen. Laastens word die bevindings oor universele jurisdiksie en die Internasionale Strafhof toegepas op Suid-Afrika, veral met verwysing na die Konstitusionele Hof beslissing oor die marteling in Zimbabwe, voordat gevolgtrekkings gemaak word oor wat presies Suid-Afrika se internasionale en plaaslike pligte behels.

Abstract not available. / Thesis (LL.D.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2011.

This thesis is an analysis of the law of vicarious liability and its application within the legal framework of delict in South Africa. A brief overview of the historical development of this branch of law is given, with reference to the influences of Roman, Roman-Dutch and English law. That is followed by an exposition of the 'modem' interpretation of vicarious liability as applied in South African courts, highlighting apparent inconsistencies and the need for reform in what has become a persistently controversial area of law. Specific attention is paid to the so-called 'course and scope enquiry' and to the enduring difficulties associated with attributing liability to employers for the deliberate wrongful conduct of their employees. It is argued that the courts have yet to reach consensus on a general principle capable of being applied to the facts of so-called 'deviation cases', and that consequently the legal divergence on these matters gives rise to uncertainty and concern. It is submitted that the way in which the traditional test for vicarious liability is currently applied fails to give true effect to the policy considerations upon which this branch of law is founded. By way of comparison with the South African position, a detailed account of the law of vicarious liability in comparable foreign jurisdictions is given, with emphasis placed on recent developments in England and the British Commonwealth. The study then moves to an analysis of the various policy considerations behind vicarious liability, with particular attention being paid to the role of risk-related liability and the role of risk-assumption in the 'course and scope' enquiry. A comparative analysis follows, highlighting differences between the approaches of the foreign jurisdictions and that taken by the South African courts. The work concludes with a proposal that the South African courts should broaden the scope of vicarious liability and opt for a model similar to that which has recently been adopted in Canada.

In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd ((2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)) the Constitutional Court made two findings of immense significance for dismissed employees: firstly, the court rejected the use of the so-called “reasonable employer” test in our law, a test which traditionally required arbitrators and courts evaluating the fairness of a dismissal for proven misconduct to treat the employer’s decision on sanction with a measure of deference; and secondly, on scrutiny of the more controversial issue before the court, to wit, the basis, if any, upon which arbitrators are obliged to make reasonable decisions, the court (in confirming that arbitrators are so obliged) held that the obligation to do so suffuses section 145 of the LRA, and that the extended review grounds legislated under PAJA do not apply. In the present article these judicial conclusions are critically analysed and evaluated, and a number of submissions are made, inter alia: it is submitted that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the “reasonable employer” test was premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the test; that while the court’s attempt to locate the reasonableness standard within the LRA was perhaps justifiable, the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the wording of section 145 and its history, with the consequence that the court failed to appreciate that section 145 of the LRA (save on an unduly strained interpretation) could not conceivably be construed to cater, in itself and without more, for the constitutional right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action; and further, that the labour landscape post-Sidumo is, to an extent, unquestionably one bathed in greater uncertainty. In conclusion, the author poses the question whether, on a review of Sidumo, the Constitutional Court should not be considered to have fallen short of fulfilling its constitutional obligations under the rule of law.

"As already mentioned, gauranteeing the right to a fair trial aims at protecting individuals from unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms. The fundamental importance of the right to a fair trial is illustrated not only by international instruments and the extensive body of interpretation it has generated, but most recently, by a proposal to include it in the non-derogable rights stipulated in article 4(2) of the ICCPR. Standards for a fair trial may stem from binding obligations that are included in human rights treaties to which a state in examination is a party, but they may also be found in documents and practices which, though not binding, can be taken to express the direction in which the law is evolving. One of the problems is that law and human rights have been viewed largely as Western concepts, and are therefore defined and valued by Western criteria. This leads to a number of difficulties. First, there are many non-Western societies in which law and human rights thus defined, is impractical and mechanisms of protecting human rights in non-Western justice systems are not recognised as comparable counterparts to those in Western societies. Secondly, African states have failed to abide by their international fair trial obligations because, probably, these standards are impractical given the realities like poverty, illiteracy and strong cultural beliefs that characterise most African communities. As a result, the law applied by the Western style courts is felt to be so out of touch with the needs of most African communities, and coercion to resort to them amounts to denial of justice. This explains why communities, especially in the rural Africa, resort to indigenous African justice systems irrespective of state recognition or otherwise. Upon realisation that the Western style of justice did not respond to the prevailing post-genocide situation for example, the government of Rwanda re-established traditional courts to help deal with the crime of genocide and foster reconciliation. A Gacaca court is constituted of a panel of lay judges who coordinate a process in which genocide survivors and suspected perpetrators and the latter between themselves confront each other. They, and the community, participate by telling the truth of what happened; who did what during the genocide, and then the judges, based on the evidence given to them, decide on the case. These judges are elected by their respective communities for their integrity, not their learning. However, human rights organisations argue that Gacaca proceedings violate the accused persons's fair trial rights. They question among other things capacity of lay judges who make decisions in these courts, to conduct a fair trial. They also contend that Gacaca does not guarantee the right to be presumed innocent because it requires confessoins and that defendants are denied legal representation. In South Africa, traditional courts (konwn as chiefs' courts) exist. They have played a crucial role in dispensing justice in the indigenous communities and are prototypes of the kind of dispute resolution mechanisms desirable in a modern society. They apply 'people's law', which developed as a result of lack of legitimacy of the Western system of justice among the indigenous South Africans. However, critics see them as conservative and unable to render justice in the modern social, economic and political climate in South Africa today. As a result, Western style court proceedings that are conducted in foreign languages to indigenous communities, and thus have to rely on inaccurate and unreliable interpreters in addition to costs for legal counsels and subjection to very technical and formal procedures, are the only alternative in criminal matters. Briefly, the major problem is to ascertain whether indigenous African criminal justice systems do, or otherwise conform to fair trial standards. If they do not, according to who are they not fair? In other words, is there a universal measure of fairness or does appreciation depend on people's enviornment and their socio-economic backgrounds, in which case, the beneficiaries of indigenous African criminal justice systems should be the ones to appreciate its fairness?" -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2004. / Prepared under the supervision of Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey at the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Oliver Tambo Institute of Governance and Policy Studies / MPM

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 provides an elaborate dispute resolution system which seeks to resolve disputes in a speedy and cost-effective manner. However, this system is faced with a number of challenges. The application of common law and administrative law causes tension between the Labour Court and civil courts. It creates uncertainty in the development of our labour law jurisprudence and also leads to the problem of forum shopping. These problems in effect undermine the objectives of the Act. This dissertation analyzes problems in the LRA and other legislations leading to forum shopping. It also analyses the view of the courts on this problem and further expounds a number of possible solutions. The analysis revolves mainly around an observation of South African literature and case law. / Mercantile Law / LL.M.

The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 provides an elaborate dispute resolution system which seeks to resolve disputes in a speedy and cost-effective manner. However, this system is faced with a number of challenges. The application of common law and administrative law causes tension between the Labour Court and civil courts. It creates uncertainty in the development of our labour law jurisprudence and also leads to the problem of forum shopping. These problems in effect undermine the objectives of the Act. This dissertation analyzes problems in the LRA and other legislations leading to forum shopping. It also analyses the view of the courts on this problem and further expounds a number of possible solutions. The analysis revolves mainly around an observation of South African literature and case law. / Mercantile Law / LL.M.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the sentencing practice of the military courts. Since an independent and impartial military judiciary is essential to ensure that justice is done a further aim of this study is to investigate whether the military courts are impartial, independent and affords the accused his fair trial rights. The sentences imposed by military courts are investigated and concerns regarding the imposition of these sentences are identified. Finally the appeal and review procedures followed by the military courts are investigated with specific reference to the military accused’s right appeal and review to a higher court as provided for by the Constitution. The sentencing phase of a trial forms an important part of the whole trial process. This is also true for military trials, yet no research has been done on military sentencing practice. Because of the potential influence of the draft Military Discipline Bill and the Law Reform Commission’s revision of the defence legislation on sentencing, research in this area is critical in the positive development of sentencing law in the military justice environment. An extensive literature study is undertaken to evaluate current military sentencing practices against civilian practices. The result of this study identifies certain concerns regarding the independence of the military courts, the treatment of military offenders and the appeal and review powers of the military reviewing authority. To a large extent it is also found that many concerns are based on the apparent rather than the existence of any real dangers to the independence of the military courts or the rights of the military accused. This thesis contributes to the accessibility of military law for a civilian audience, creating a platform for the development of future military sentences. / Jurisprudence / LLD