Sunday is Grandparents Day in the US. Strangely, even though we don’t mark the event, SA courts have seen a recent spate of cases involving grandparents. These cases deal with widely differing facts, but together they lead a reader to conclude that a grandparent’s role is far from clear.
Late last month the high court in Grahamstown heard a dispute concerning a woman whose son was born soon after her husband died in a car crash.
THIS whole week I’ve been hearing and writing about angry responses from sections of the legal profession to the government’s proposed Legal Practice Bill.
So it was something of a surprise when, on Tuesday, I was approached by organisations representing SA’s community advice offices and the paralegals working with them. They wanted to discuss their submissions to Parliament on the bill – the essence of which is that they are distressed to have been left out of its ambit.
Important news here for lawyers – and attorneys with the right to appear in the higher courts should pay special attention. A new judgment, disguised under a dispute between Liberty Group and two brokers, slices through reams of red tape and could simplify practice.
When Liberty asked for summary judgment against brokers Roychand and Reetha Devi Singh, the two objected to the action on the grounds that the company’s paperwork was faulty: they claimed the documentation was signed by an attorney not legally empowered to do so.
Strange how the supposedly random allocation of cases shapes a judge’s public reputation. I’m thinking here in particular of Judge Mahomed Navsa of the Supreme Court of Appeal, but there are others in a similar position.
After sitting in several high-profile controversial cases and writing the judgment in those cases, Judge Navsa has taken considerable flak over the past few years.