Zobrazeno 1 - 5
of 5
pro vyhledávání: '"Phindile Raymond Msaule"'
Autor:
Phindile Raymond Msaule
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 27 (2024)
This contribution contends that in holding that the once-and-for-all rule was applicable in Olesitse NO v Minister of Police the SCA erred. The error was cause by the SCA mischaracterising the cause of action in this matter. It is trite that the succ
Externí odkaz:
https://doaj.org/article/c9450ed54cc84da39ef949f3e0a87d3d
Autor:
Phindile Raymond Msaule
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol 24 (2021)
Before the judgement in De Klerk v Minister of Police 2020 1 SACR 1 (CC), (de Klerk), a plaintiff could claim damages for unlawful arrest and detention after the first appearance in court if the arresting (or the investigating) officer had conducted
Externí odkaz:
https://doaj.org/article/365ccd2a9adb40e88934c1541dc46e2a
Autor:
Phindile Raymond Msaule
Publikováno v:
Southern African Public Law. 35
Criminal prosecution is generally the preserve of the state. However, there are legislated exceptions that allow for private prosecution. For example, section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 entitles individuals who satisfy certain criteri
Externí odkaz:
https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::7d306a0c76620dfd2a9cd061e20ddb42
https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-6800/7027
https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-6800/7027
Autor:
Phindile Raymond Msaule
Publikováno v:
Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad; Vol 21, No 1 (2018)
The right of the arrested and accused persons to remain silent at pre-trial and during their trial are significant to ensuring a fair trial. The purpose of the right to remain silent is to ensure that the state bears the duty to prove the guilt of th
Externí odkaz:
https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::a349930573cd6a749a05ed4091019042
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a4746
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a4746
Autor:
Phindile Raymond Msaule
Publikováno v:
Acta Universitatis Danubius: Juridica, Vol 12, Iss 3, Pp 94-106 (2016)
The object of this article is to argue that section 73A(5) of the Competition Act of 1998 is constitutional. Some commentators have argued that this provision creates reverse onus offence and is therefore unconstitutional. The article argues against
Externí odkaz:
https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doajarticles::9e48a985284008eebdf5a90efb95f391
http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/juridica/article/view/3621/3703
http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/juridica/article/view/3621/3703