LL.M. / This research is a comparative study of the provisions for guardianship and custody, including maintenance of the South African common law and customary law. In customary law the emphasis is on the law of the Bafokeng people which is a tribe chosen as group of the research. The purpose of this research is to analyze the provisions of guardianship, custody and maintenance applicable to these legal systems. The analysis is divided as follows: • Guardianship and custody: (i) during the marriage; after divorce; after death of parent(s); of an extra-marital child. • Maintenance of children: (i) during the marriage; after divorce; after death of parent(s); born outside marriage (extra-marital children). The objective is to highlight the similarities and differences between the provisions of these legal systems and to come up with the conclusion whether the one is more favourable than the other in catering for the needs and interests of its subjects. The conclusion will be governed by the following issues: • Which legal system caters for the interests of its subjects? • Which legal system accords with the provisions of the Constitution Act? • Which legal system protects the interests of the child best? Having come to that conclusion, the researcher aims at indicating laws which should be considered for reform.

With the rapid development of the Islamic banking and finance in South Africa, the legal regime of South Africa, must be able to progress at the same rate of development. The recognition of a foreign legal system such as Islamic law in South Africa is challenging and difficult. South Africa, has an interest based insurance legislative framework and this is not aligned with the principles of the Islamic financial system. As a result of this, regulators have taken various measures to develop and promote the Islamic Industry. The amendment to the South African Tax legislation has created an equitable and level playing field for Islamic law. The South African government also has a further obligation which is to develop a legislative framework to govern Islamic law, as well as to enhance the regulatory and supervisory framework. The study of the development of the Islamic legal regime is an important area that aids legal practitioners in identifying and resolving legal disputes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the accommodation of the Islamic law of Takaful under the South African Insurance legal framework. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M. (Public, Constitutional and International Law)

Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

Thesis (LLD)--University of Stellenbosch, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The focus of this study is the rights-based normative overlap of labour and administrative law in public employment. As the judiciary appeared to be unable to agree on a unified approach to the application of the rights to fair labour practices and just administrative action to public employment, it was clear that the complexity and multi-dimensional character of the debate required analysis of existing approaches to the regulation of the public employment relationship. The following initial research question was formulated: To what extent does (and should) the constitutionalised rights to fair labour practices (s 23) and just administrative action (s 33) simultaneously find application in the regulation of public employment relationships? In answering this question, certain realities had to be acknowledged, the most important being that the debate in question jurisprudentially revealed itself to be a jurisdictional turf-war between the Labour and High Courts, rather than proper consideration of the relevant substantive arguments and underlying normative considerations. This called for an additional dimension to be added to the research question, namely consideration of the extent to which the ss 23 and 33 rights are informed by variable and possibly different normative principles and whether these rights allow for cooperative regulation of public employment in accordance with the doctrine of interdependent fundamental rights. This became the primary focus of the study. In an attempt to simplify the debate, a deliberate decision was taken to limit the scope of the normative study to South Africa with its own historic influences, structures and constitutional considerations. The study shows that both labour and administrative law (as constitutionally informed) share concern for equity-based principles. This is evident from the flexible contextually informed perspectives of administrative law reasonableness in relation to labour law substantive fairness, as well as a shared concern for and approach to procedural fairness. Once simplified, and in the absence of any undue positive law complexity, the public employment relationship, at both a normative and theoretical level, furthermore shows no substantive status difference with private employment relationships. It is, however, accepted that there are job and sector-specific contextual differences. In the absence of substantive normative conflict between these branches of law and in the absence of a fundamental (as opposed to contextual) difference between public and private employment, there appears to be no reason to ignore the constitutional jurisprudential calls for hybridity, otherwise termed the doctrine of interdependence. The idea of normatively interdependent rights expresses the Constitution’s transformative vision (through the idea of flexible conceptual contextualism) and recognises that human rights may overlap. This also means that where such overlap exists, rights should be interpreted and applied in a mutually supportive and cooperative manner that allows for the full protection and promotion of those rights. In giving expression to the interdependent normative framework of constitutional rights, these norms (absent any substantive rights-based conflict) should then be used by the judiciary as an interpretative tool to align specific labour law and general administrative law in the regulation of public employment relationships. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die fokus van hierdie studie is die regsgebaseerde normatiewe oorvleueling van arbeids- en administratiefreg in die openbare diensverhouding. Aangesien dit blyk dat die regsbank nie kon saamstem oor ‘n eenvormige benadering tot die toepassing van die regte op billike arbeidspraktyke en regverdige administratiewe optrede op die openbare diensverhouding nie, het die kompleksiteit en multi-dimensionele karakter van die debat dit genoodsaak om bestaande benaderings tot die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding te analiseer. In die lig hiervan is die volgende aanvanklike navorsingsvraag geformuleer: Tot watter mate vind die grondwetlik neergelegde regte tot billike arbeidspraktyke (a 23) en regmatige administratiewe optrede (a 33) gelykmatig toepassing in die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding en tot watter mate hoort die regte gelykmatig toepassing te vind? In antwoord op die vraag is sekere realiteite geïdentifiseer, waarvan die belangrikste is dat die debat in die regspraak grootliks neergekom het op ‘n jurisdiksionele magstryd tussen die Arbeids- en Hooggeregshowe, eerder as werklike oorweging van die relevante substantiewe argumente en onderliggende normatiewe oorwegings. Dit het die byvoeging van ’n verdere dimensie tot die navorsingsvraag genoodsaak, naamlik oorweging van die mate waartoe die aa 23 en 33 regte deur buigsame en moontlik verskillende normatiewe beginsels beïnvloed word, en ook of hierdie regte ruimte laat vir mederegulering van die openbare diensverhouding in terme van die leerstuk van interafhanklikheid van fundamentele regte? Laasgenoemde het die primêre fokus van die studie geword. In ‘n poging om die debat te vereenvoudig, is doelbewus besluit om die strekking van die normatiewe studie te beperk tot Suid-Afrika, met eiesoortige historiese invloede, strukture en grondwetlike oorwegings. Soos die normatiewe studie ontvou het, wys die studie dat beide arbeids- en administratiefreg (soos grondwetlik beïnvloed) ‘n gemeenskaplike belang in billikheids-gebaseerde beginsels openbaar. Daar is ‘n versoenbaarheid tussen die kontekstueel beïnvloedbare en buigsame redelikheidsperspetief van die administratiefreg, soos gesien in vergelyking met substantiewe billikheid in die arbeidsreg. Voorts heg beide die arbeids- en administratiefreg ‘n gemeenskaplike waarde aan, en volg beide ‘n gemeenskaplike benadering tot, prosedurele billikheid. Terselfdertyd, en in die afwesigheid van onnodige positiefregtelike kompleksiteit, blyk daar op beide ‘n normatiewe en teoretiese vlak geen substantiewe verskil in status tussen die openbare diensverhouding en die privaat diensverhouding te wees nie. Dit word egter aanvaar dat daar wel werk- en sektor-spesifieke kontekstuele verskille bestaan. In die afwesigheid van substantiewe normatiewe konflik tussen die twee vertakkinge van die reg en in die afwesigheid van ‘n fundamentele (in vergelyking met kontekstuele) verskil tussen diensverhoudings in die openbare en privaatsektore, blyk daar geen rede te wees om die grondwetlike jurisprudensiële vereiste van hibriditeit, ook genoem die leerstuk van die interafhanklikheid van grondwetlike regte, te ignoreer nie. Die idee van normatiewe interafhanklike regte gee uitdrukking aan die Grondwet se visie van transformasie (via die idee van buigsame konsepsuele kontekstualisme) en erken dat menseregte soms oorvleuel. Dit beteken ook dat waar so ‘n oorvleueling bestaan, regte ïnterpreteer en toegepas moet word in ‘n wedersyds ondersteunende en samewerkende wyse wat voorsiening maak vir die volle beskerming en bevordering van daardie regte. Erkenning van die interafhanklike normatiewe raamwerk van grondwetlike regte hoort daartoe te lei dat die regsbank daardie norme (in die afwesigheid van regsgebaseerde konflik) as interpretasie-hulpmiddel gebruik om die spesifieke arbeidsreg met die algemene administratiefreg te versoen in die regulering van die openbare diensverhouding.

Historically, labour dispute resolution in South Africa has been synonymous with being expensive, unnecessarily lengthy and ineffective. The Labour Relations Act (LRA) 66 of 1995 set out to change this through the creation of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The design of the CCMA is centred on a dispute resolution institution that adopts a quick, cheap and non-legalistic approach to dispute resolution. Through the introduction of compulsory arbitration for specified dismissal and unfair labour practice disputes, the LRA granted the CCMA the mandate of upholding the objectives of industrial peace and reducing exorbitant legal costs. The outcome of arbitration proceedings conducted under the auspices of the CCMA are final and binding. Accordingly, this sui generis type of proceedings aimed at being cheap and informal has several implications. The adherence to traditional legal principles, in particular the rules relating to the presentation and admissibility of evidence cannot be adhered to rigorously in a forum where parties are unrepresented and that has informality as a defining feature. This paper set out to examine the proposition that based on various statutory powers; arbitrations are to be conducted informally and free from legalism- which necessarily entails a relaxation if not elimination of the traditional exclusionary rules pertaining to the presentation and admission of evidence. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2013.

Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate Law)

Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

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.

The aim of this thesis is to analyse the silence principle (i.e. the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination) and to determine its place within procedural and constitutional law. Should the silence principle be entirely abolished, sustained as a limited evidentiary rule or elevated to the status of a constitutional right? The central question to be argued is whether the silence principle has a rationally justifiable and valid procedural place within the accusatorial-adversarial Anglo-American system of criminal justice. The methodology employed in the main body of this thesis involves a critical and comparative examination of the silence principle and is founded on the following four legs : a) A historical analysis of the silence principle and its antecedents. Does the historical silence principle support the modern silence principle in description and scope? b) An analysis of the distinction between a "right" and a "privilege". Why is the accused's right to silence distinguished from the witness privilege? Is there a philosophical justification for the silence principle? c) A comparative study of the two major jurisdictions of the Anglo-American system of justice, namely : i) The American silence principle constituted as the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and entrenched within the U.S. Constitution; ii) The English silence principle constituted until recently as a common law evidentiary rule contained within a body of ill-defined principles loosely referred to as the unwritten English Constitution. The common law rule has been statutorily formalized in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and will be greatly influenced by the new Human Rights Act 1998. iii) The South African interpretation of a silence principle is caught between the two extremes of an American absolute right and an English evidentiary rule. Silence in South Africa is a relative right subject to a balance of interest and reasonable limitation. Which of these definitions is better suited as a template for an ideal silence principle? vi d) A comparative international study of the procedural differences between an inquisitorial and an accusatorial system. How does a principle of silence function outside the accusatorial system? The conclusion of the thesis is that the most suitable role of a silence principle within the accusatorial system is one of a flexible compromise. While it does not deserve abolition neither does it deserve elevation into a constitutional right. Silence is best suited to the role of a procedural evidentiary rule. A circumstantial item of evidence with its trial admissibility determined by the criteria of relevancy and prejudice. If the legal, political and cultural pressures upon a particular jurisdiction are such as to demand constitutional entrenchment then the second best alternative is to define the silence principle as a relative right susceptible to a properly applied balance of interest test. The worst alternative is to define the silence principle in absolute terms. Silence as an evidentiary rule or a relative right means that it will sometimes be necessary to emphasise the autonomous interests of the individual in remaining silent and at other times the societal interest in crime prevention. Which interest is to be preferred and to what extent will depend on the prevailing social pressures of the day. It shall be argued that the elevation of a silence principle into a constitutional right stifles a critical examination of the essentiale of silence by disguising its inherent irrationality and lack of a philosophical raison de etre. The interpretation of a silence principle as an absolute constitutional right by the Supreme Court of the United States is confusing, contradictory and riddled with innumerable exceptions. By contrast the English approach to silence is pragmatic and highly successful. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 gives a meaningful interpretation of silence which takes into account its logical flaws. The English statute is a successful compromise between the need to protect the individual during the criminal process and the need to combating crime in the most efficient manner possible. While the South African interpretation of silence is a workable compromise, South Africa may have been better served by defining its silence principle in terms of the pragmatic English statutory model which allows for the efficient but carefully controlled use of silence in the combating of crime. / Jurisprudence / LL.D. (Jurisprudence)