July is Mandela Month, giving us a perfect opportunity to talk about how the concept of ubuntu has impacted South African law.

To what extent do our courts recognise ubuntu and apply it when deciding legal matters? How does that affect our legal rights and obligations? Does it impact our freedom to enter into contracts as we please? And will our other documentation pass muster when measured against the principles of ubuntu? 

We’ll address these important questions in the context of a case featuring a particularly draconian clause in a loan agreement.

Unlawfully forcing an employee to retire at “normal retirement age” could amount to automatically unfair age discrimination – and lead to the employer paying out a compensation order of two years’ earnings. 

It’s crucial to understand that, contrary to the fake news recently circulating on social media, South Africa does not have a universally applied “normal retirement age”. 

How then do employers and employees know what a fair retirement age is, and how can employers avoid being accused of age discrimination? The story of a plumber forced to retire at 60 provides a practical example of the legal principles involved.

Our justice authorities are charged with bringing criminals to book. Victims of crime who are failed by our law enforcement and court systems are subjected to a second round of victimisation when they don’t see justice done. Sometimes the matter doesn’t even get to the trial stage because the National Prosecuting Authority declines to prosecute altogether. Can the victim then go the “private prosecution” route?  

We’ll explain the answer to that in the context of a bitter dispute between neighbours in an upmarket suburb of Cape Town, which led to criminal charges being laid...

“Nolle prosequi”

A nolle prosequi (Latin for “do not want to pursue”) is a formal certificate issued by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) when it decides not to pursue criminal charges against a person accused of a crime. This does not mean the accused is innocent, only that the state has chosen not to proceed. That’s usually due to the NPA’s assessment that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. But it does open the door for the person laying the charges to consider instituting a private prosecution.