Today's judgment is a good (bad) example. It's confusing that the majority judgment is not the first judgment. Writing chamber I know I know. But why not at least label them majority and dissent?
Sorry, I didn’t come back to this earlier.
I wholeheartedly agree. It’s often confusing to figure out which is which, until you’re deep into the judgment.
The SCA is the worst culprit but the CC is now catching up.
Let’s go back to basics, please?
At some point we need to have a discussion about how appellate courts label judgments. South African appeal courts some very reluctant to use "majority" and dissent". The Concourt's practice of "first", "second", "third" isn't helpful...
Without wanting to sound too alarmist, this must now be in the conversation for the deepest jurisprudential split in SA legal history. This is the eleventh judgment on reconsideration this year alone. There are now 3 clear splits: ...
Hey @JasonMitchellSA and @dansmywholename can we say there’s a small jurisprudential crisis at the @SCA_ZA regarding section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act?
The court has now given at 3 judgments on it this year, including one given today, which is split 3 ways (2-2-1).
...(1) the test for reconsideration; (2) whether a 3-judge panel can overrule a 5-judge panel; and (3) the appropriate order if reconsideration is refused
The SCA (seemingly inadvertently) settled the debate on the test for leave to appeal today: "It is now trite that section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act have raised the threshold for grating leave to appeal": saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/20…
The last episode of Allpay: saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/202…
Still not much clarity about what no-profit-no-loss means, besides it's all discretionary
@dansmywholename update that syllabus!