Liesl Hager

In this article I engage with the provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 regulating the dissolution of the universal partnership upon insolvency. Our common law prefers an aggregate approach to partnerships, meaning that a partnership enjoys no separate legal personality distinct from its composing partners. The lack of separate legal personality of a partnership is described by some academics as a ‘remarkable defect’. The Insolvency Act however creates an exception to this general rule by deeming a partnership to be a separate legal entity. The Insolvency Act’s deviation from the common-law rule and creation of a ‘juristic ghost’ is explored in this article. The ‘dual priorities’ rule, the aggregate theory and the entity theory are explained in this article. Furthermore, the judicial debates about the Act’s deviation are discussed. In conclusion, it is suggested that the presumption that legislation does not intend to change existing law should not apply when dealing with the ...

To understand the universal partnership it is essential to firstly understand the concept of a partnership in general. A partnership is a relationship relating from a contract or agreement either express or tacit.  In The Law of Business Structures a partnership is defined as a legal relationship that is formed when two or more
persons (partners) carry on business together with the collective objective to make profit.  In this context a partnership is a business structure. The universal partnership is also a business structure, but as this discussion continues it becomes evident that
the universal partnership may extend beyond commercial activities when dealing with cohabitation in particular. A description and the two forms of a universal partnership are discussed below. This dissertation focuses on the universal partnership in the context of cohabiting partners that are unmarried.

The universal partnership is a unique common-law creature that offers valuable benefits during its subsistence and especially upon its dissolution. This article is concerned with the application of the dissolution of universal partnership as an interchangeable legal remedy, by providing litigants with contractual remedies. Foreign jurisdictions such as Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe have used the consequences of the dissolution of the universal partnership in various cases from putative marriages to customary law cases in order to do justice between the parties. These foreign courts have applied the consequences of dissolution in a reformative and liberal manner, without being side-tracked by legislative departures and debates. Although much debate surrounds the interchangeable approaches followed by the courts when using this contract in cases of putative marriages, unrecognised religious marriages, cohabitation and customary law, it is nonetheless applied as a remedial measure. The intended “single marriage statute” and relevance thereof on the universal partnership is also explored in this article. The difference between intimate and commercial universal partnerships as well as the drawbacks of using the universal partnership in the context of cohabitation is shortly discussed. It is suggested that our courts more willingly provide contract-based relief to litigating parties by following a liberal application the universal partnership. Unmarried cohabiting persons are often left without legislative recourse and remedies as the intended “single marriage statute” and the Domestic Partnership Bill of 2008 has not yet been enacted into law. For this reason a reformative, progressive and liberal application of the universal partnership, as observed in foreign law, may certainly allow our courts to protect these vulnerable parties.

Encounters: An Anthology of South African Short Stories by David Medalie (1998) includes a number of short stories which describe encounters that invite the reader to consider the implications thereof. This essay discusses the way in which the inseparable link between the personal experience and the wider socio-political context is represented in the two stories. In this essay Blankets (p.63) by Alex La Guma is analysed first, followed by the analysis of Relatives (p.170) by Chris van Wyk.

Edgar Smith conducts an attorneys practice and owns a building company. Smith’s building company needed a financial injection to survive, due to financial problems. Joe De Maggio, a client of Smith, consulted him about a R1 million investment. Smith had made various investments on behalf of De Maggio over the years. Smith was aware of the fact that De Maggio was allegedly the kingpin of a criminal syndicate. Smith suggested that De Maggio lend the money to him personally, as an investment in his building company. Liquidation proceedings on Smith’s building company commenced. De Maggio never received the loan money which Smith owed him. Mrs Belinda De Maggio, De Maggio’s wife, approached Smith to institute a divorce action against Mr De Maggio.

In the poem ‘I’m a man’ by Mzi Mahola the first person speaker recalls what seems to be his traditional initiation ceremony. In this critical analysis the poem’s diction and poetic devices will be discussed in relation to the conveyance of the speaker’s personal experience.

Professor Pierre de Vos se amptelike blog: “Constitutionally Speaking” (constitutionallyspeaking.co.za) handel oor sosiale en politiese kwessies in Suid-Afrika. Die tuiste(1) gee die leser ‘n perspektief van wat die Grondwetlike Reg in Suid-Afrika behels en gee lesers ook kans om kommentare op die artikels, wat deur de Vos gepubliseer is, te maak.
De Vos en Lindiwe Mazibuko (Die DA se Parlimentêre Leier) het beide klagtes teen President Jacob Zuma by die Openbare Beskermer ingedien. De Vos plaas op 20 Maart die artikel: “Nkandla Report exposes President Zuma’s personal involvement in the project” en op 22 Maart die artikel: “Extract from Nkandla Report: How Zuma stymied investigation”.  Ek het my refleksie gebaseer op my kommentare op beide die betrokke artikels. (Sien bylaag vir aangehegde artikel kommentare)
In die artikel: “Nkandla Report exposes President Zuma’s personal involvement in the project” maak de Vos dit duidelik aan die leser dat President Zuma herhaaldelik sy betrokkenheid by die Nkandla Projek ontken het en dit steeds ontken. De Vos lewer egter bewyse aan die leser (deur middel van die Openbare Beskermer se verslag) dat president Zuma wel betrokke was by die Nkandla Projek en uitgebreide kennis gedra het oor die aanwending van publieke fondse.
In die artikel haal De Vos President Zuma aan (in ‘n onderhoud met ENCA): “…as president, one did not ask about or debate matters relating to one’s personal security.  “You don’t,” he said. “No president asks that question…. I can tell you sitting here — there are things that they have done that I don’t know. In fact, they will tell you [that you are] not supposed to know.”
In die stelling beweer die president dat hy nie kennis mag dra van enige projekte wat sy persoonlike veiligheid tot betrekking het nie. Hy beweer ook in die stelling dat daar baie goed gedoen is waarvan hy nie kennis dra nie.
Die verskoning kan nie deur die president gebruik word nie, omdat hy bewus was van ál die verwikkelinge in die Nkandla Projek. Zuma het kennis gedra dat die projek deur die belastingbetaler gefonds word. Zuma het met argitekte ontmoet en verskeie dokumente onderteken vir die goedkeuring van luukse opgraderings op Nkandla. Zuma kan dus nie sy betrokkenheid ontken nie. Zuma het  dokumente onderteken en dus was hy bewus gewees van die kostes wat die opgraderings beloop én die feit dat dit deur die publiek gefonds word.
Zuma het in onderhoude gesê dat die Nkandla Projek ‘n sekuriteits opgradering van sy woning is. Deel van die sogenaamde “security upgrades” sluit volgens die openbare beskermer se verslag ook die volgende in: “cattle culvert; …Tuck Shop; … relocation of families; upgrade of water supply; helipad…”, sowel as die konstruksie van ‘n amfiteater en ‘n swembad. Die president het indiepte kennis gedra oor die feit dat die sogenaamde “opgraderings” in werklikheid luukse aanbouïngs was ter wille van eie gewin en ten koste van die belastingbetaler en publieke fondse.
Dit is absurd dat die belastingbetaler se geld spandeer word op luukse opgraderings en dat die president dan betrokkenheid by die saak ontken. Die president moet verantwoordelikheid neem vir die spandering van die belastingbetaler se fondse. Die verskoning dat hy “nie geweet het nie” of “nie mag weet nie” is ongeldig. As president van die land is hy geregtig op enige inligting wat die spandering van publieke fondse behels. Dit is deel van Presiden Zuma se verantwoordelikhede en verpligtinge as President om die korrupte spandering en aanwending van publieke fondse te verhoed. Dit is ook in die publiek se belang om te weet hoe hul geld as belastingbetalers spandeer word en op wat.
In die artikel: “Extract from Nkandla Report: How Zuma stymied investigation” maak de Vos dit duidelik aan die leser dat President Zuma versuim het om vrae te beantwoord en dukomente te verskaf tydens die ondersoek. President Zuma vertraag dus doelbewus die ondersoek van die Openbare Beskermer deur nie die dokumente beskikbaar te stel nie. Gesamentlik het die President en verskeie ministers hulle samewerking geweier.
Die Openbare Beskermer, Thuli Madonsela, het dit duidelik gemaak aan publikasies soos SABC(2) en City Press(3) dat sy gefrustreerd was met die ministers wat haar Nkandla ondersoek vertraag het. Sy verwys spesifiek na die staat wat haar probeer keer het om haar verslag bekend te maak en ministers wat die ondersoek op kritiese tye doelbewus vertraag het(3). Madonsela verwys ook na die feit dat sy en haar ondersoekspan net toegang gegee is tot sekere dokumente, vir ‘n beperkte tyd, onder toesig. Madonsela sê ook dat sekere sleutel figure van haar ondersoekspan by belangrike vergaderings uitgesluit is.
Volgens die ‘Public Protectors Act’ 1994; Artikel 11(3) is dit onwettig om nie die openbare beskermer se vrae te beantwoord of om die nodige dokumente te verskaf nie(4). Sulke optrede is volgens die ‘Public Protectors Act’ 1994, Artikel 11(4) strafbaar deur ‘n boete van R40 000 en/of 12 maande tronkstraf(4). Madonsela beweer verskeie ministers en die President het onkonstitusioneel opgetree tydens haar ondersoek(3).
Dit is onaanvaarbaar dat die president en sy ministers weg kom met die optrede. Deur hulle magsposisies te misbruik ontduik hulle die tronkstraf en boetes. Dit is onregverdig en bewys weereens dat die Suid-Afrikaanse regstelsel nie gelykheid bevorder nie. Reg en geregtigheid geskied beslis nie wanneer korrupsie en die misbruik van magsposisies skuldiges uit die tronke hou nie.
Volgens City Press sê Madonsela op meer as drie geleenthede dat die ministers die hof mislei deur feite te verdraai of uit te laat.(3) Lede van die publiek is van menig dat die president jok oor sy betrokkenheid by die projek en doelbewus sy mag misbruik en korrupsie bevorder. Die publiek is ook van mening dat die regstelsel korrup is omdat almal nie gelyk behandel word nie.(1) Dit is ongelukkig ‘n feit dat geld, mag en invloed die beloop van ‘n ondersoek en die uitkomste van ‘n saak kan beïnvloed, ten gunste van die beskuldigde. 
Die wantroue van die gemiddelde Suid-Afrikaanse burger word duidelik in die ‘blog’ gereflekteer. Die gemeenskap se kommentare dui op mense wat opstandig is teenoor korrupsie, bedrog en die misbruik van mag deur onbekwame leiers. Mense het ‘n behoefte na inligting. In die belang van die publiek moet meer gedoen word om die publiek in te lig oor soortgelyke kwessies. Meer moet gedoen word om die publiek se belange te beskerm. Daar moet ook beter maatreëls in plek gestel word vir die verantwoordelike en billike aanwending van publieke fondse.

Om die argument ten gunste van die herstellende benadering tot straf te verstaan, word die wyse waarop die howe vonnisse vasstel eerstens in hierdie opstel bespreek. Tweedens word die verskeie vorme van straf en die doel van straf bespreek. Aan die hand van regspraak, Afrika regsleer en onafhanklike navorsing sal die navorsingsprobleem ten gunste van die herstellende benadering geargumenteer word.

‘n Biografiese skets in historiese konteks van Marais se lewe begin in die vroeë dae van Pretoria in 1871 en eindig in 1936. Om Marais se bydrae tot Afrikaanse letterkunde en sy invloed op Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis te verstaan, word daar eerste gekyk na die faktore voor Marais se geboorte. Daarna word Marais se lewensverhaal en die tydperk waarin hy geleef het bespreek. Laastens word Marais se impak op die geskiedenis sowel as die huidige samelewing geanaliseer.