SJD 1501 Assignment 3
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF JUSTICE
, Section 1
Dispute 1
1.1 A formal dispute resolution would be appropriate, as Mr Nkosi admitted he was
responsible for the damage and he intentionally meant to cause damage to the vehicle.
This is a case of malicious damage to property, the intentional damaging of property
that belongs to another person which is a crime in South African law. Mr Nkosi will be
prosecuted in a criminal case for malicious damage, and will also have to be sued for
damages to property.
1.2 Yes, going to court is an option for both the criminal court in which the case will be
taken by state and the Civil court in which the case will be between the two parties.
Dispute 2
2.1 The method that was used was the Informal dispute resolution: Mediation.
2.2 Yes, this could have been resolved by the courts, the small claims court would be the
competent court for this dispute because it is a private matter between two parties and it
also involves a claim of less than R15000.00. In terms of section 15 and 16 of the small
claims courts Act 16 of 1984 the financial jurisdictional limit for small claims courts is
R15000, and since the damages in question are only R7000, the matter falls within
jurisdiction of the small claims court.
Dispute 3
3.1 They have attempted the Informal dispute resolution: Negotiation.
3.2 They can still try the following:
Informal dispute resolution: Mediation and,
Informal dispute resolution: Arbitration
Dispute 4
4.1 This matter would have been heard in the District Magistrate Court as a civil matter
because it is a private matter between individuals, and because of the financial jurisdictional
limit, in terms of section 29 of the magistrate courts Act 32 of 1944, the District Magistrate
court can hear matters over R15000 and up to R200000.
4.2 The other option would be to appeal to the high court which can also hear matters that
are on appeal from the Magistrate’s Court. If you lose a trial, you can lodge an appeal to the
higher court for it to review the earlier decision of the original or trial court.
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF JUSTICE
, Section 1
Dispute 1
1.1 A formal dispute resolution would be appropriate, as Mr Nkosi admitted he was
responsible for the damage and he intentionally meant to cause damage to the vehicle.
This is a case of malicious damage to property, the intentional damaging of property
that belongs to another person which is a crime in South African law. Mr Nkosi will be
prosecuted in a criminal case for malicious damage, and will also have to be sued for
damages to property.
1.2 Yes, going to court is an option for both the criminal court in which the case will be
taken by state and the Civil court in which the case will be between the two parties.
Dispute 2
2.1 The method that was used was the Informal dispute resolution: Mediation.
2.2 Yes, this could have been resolved by the courts, the small claims court would be the
competent court for this dispute because it is a private matter between two parties and it
also involves a claim of less than R15000.00. In terms of section 15 and 16 of the small
claims courts Act 16 of 1984 the financial jurisdictional limit for small claims courts is
R15000, and since the damages in question are only R7000, the matter falls within
jurisdiction of the small claims court.
Dispute 3
3.1 They have attempted the Informal dispute resolution: Negotiation.
3.2 They can still try the following:
Informal dispute resolution: Mediation and,
Informal dispute resolution: Arbitration
Dispute 4
4.1 This matter would have been heard in the District Magistrate Court as a civil matter
because it is a private matter between individuals, and because of the financial jurisdictional
limit, in terms of section 29 of the magistrate courts Act 32 of 1944, the District Magistrate
court can hear matters over R15000 and up to R200000.
4.2 The other option would be to appeal to the high court which can also hear matters that
are on appeal from the Magistrate’s Court. If you lose a trial, you can lodge an appeal to the
higher court for it to review the earlier decision of the original or trial court.
