Law of Evidence Discussion
1. The type of evidence Mavis is presenting can be viewed as hearsay – evidence
of something which the witness has not personally observed. Meaning that
Mavis testifies about something which she heard from a hacker who themselves
are not witnesses in court.
According to the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988, hearsay
evidence is in principle inadmissible. However, it now provides the court with a
wide discretion to allow such evidence in certain cases. Section 3 provides that
the court may, having regard to the nature, purpose and probative value the
evidence, allow hearsay evidence if it is in the interests of justice.
Thus, hearsay evidence is still regarded as inadmissible before the court but
can be viewed as admissible only in certain cases, under specific provisions.
2. The information uncovered by @User6^654321 can be viewed evidence of
character. The purpose of evidence of character is to show that a person has a
propensity to act in a certain way. However, it is inadmissible according to the
general rule of evidence because it is usually irrelevant to the facts of the case.
, Courts and ADR Discussion
1. In terms of a civil case such as this according to South African Law, if the
amount of the claim is more than R400 000, the claim must be instituted in
the High Court.
Due to the fact that Melanie and Charlene’s amount of the claim exceeds
R400 000, these proceedings would be instituted in the High Court.
2. In terms of this agreement a clause on jurisdiction has been set. The parties
elect to have entirety of their agreement governed by the law of South Africa.
Thus, a South African court will have jurisdiction over the failure to deliver
goods to any of the resorts in Mozambique.
3. Melanie believes that Mr Thabo Maseko and A, B, C Liquor has violated
her Constitutional right to be presumed innocent. She has, therefore,
expressed the view that the Constitutional Court will have exclusive
jurisdiction. Explain to Melanie when the Constitutional Court has
exclusive jurisdiction and indicate if this is one of those instances.
A decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed to any of the
courts in South Africa. Furthermore, section 167(4) of the Constitution
stipulates that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters
such as:
Disputes between organs of state in the national or provincial sphere;
The constitutionality of parliamentary or provincial bills after the President
or the premier of a province, respectively, has referred them to the
Constitutional Court, which can happen when the President or a premier
refuse to sign a Bill;
The constitutionality of a parliamentary or provincial Act after members of
the national assembly or a provincial legislature, respectively, have applied
to the Constitutional Court for an order declaring such an Act
unconstitutional;
1. The type of evidence Mavis is presenting can be viewed as hearsay – evidence
of something which the witness has not personally observed. Meaning that
Mavis testifies about something which she heard from a hacker who themselves
are not witnesses in court.
According to the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988, hearsay
evidence is in principle inadmissible. However, it now provides the court with a
wide discretion to allow such evidence in certain cases. Section 3 provides that
the court may, having regard to the nature, purpose and probative value the
evidence, allow hearsay evidence if it is in the interests of justice.
Thus, hearsay evidence is still regarded as inadmissible before the court but
can be viewed as admissible only in certain cases, under specific provisions.
2. The information uncovered by @User6^654321 can be viewed evidence of
character. The purpose of evidence of character is to show that a person has a
propensity to act in a certain way. However, it is inadmissible according to the
general rule of evidence because it is usually irrelevant to the facts of the case.
, Courts and ADR Discussion
1. In terms of a civil case such as this according to South African Law, if the
amount of the claim is more than R400 000, the claim must be instituted in
the High Court.
Due to the fact that Melanie and Charlene’s amount of the claim exceeds
R400 000, these proceedings would be instituted in the High Court.
2. In terms of this agreement a clause on jurisdiction has been set. The parties
elect to have entirety of their agreement governed by the law of South Africa.
Thus, a South African court will have jurisdiction over the failure to deliver
goods to any of the resorts in Mozambique.
3. Melanie believes that Mr Thabo Maseko and A, B, C Liquor has violated
her Constitutional right to be presumed innocent. She has, therefore,
expressed the view that the Constitutional Court will have exclusive
jurisdiction. Explain to Melanie when the Constitutional Court has
exclusive jurisdiction and indicate if this is one of those instances.
A decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed to any of the
courts in South Africa. Furthermore, section 167(4) of the Constitution
stipulates that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters
such as:
Disputes between organs of state in the national or provincial sphere;
The constitutionality of parliamentary or provincial bills after the President
or the premier of a province, respectively, has referred them to the
Constitutional Court, which can happen when the President or a premier
refuse to sign a Bill;
The constitutionality of a parliamentary or provincial Act after members of
the national assembly or a provincial legislature, respectively, have applied
to the Constitutional Court for an order declaring such an Act
unconstitutional;
