That is just beyond imagination. And it is the poor who probably suffer the most, in such cases… Actually it’s sickening.

I am not sure if I want to know what happened to the magistrate…

NB. I asked: “isn’t it true that most judicial officers have
not yet tuned-into the more EQUITY based view of post ‘94″ ?
But all your disagreements with the prof. mention EQUALITY.

Which leads to the punch-line, which they considered too
improper to answer: “what mechanism to use to safely tell
the judicial officer, ‘look boy, if you are so lazy as to
just take the old-60’s precedents, I’m going to take this
matter higher, where they DO understand considerations
of equity, and not just the 60’s ‘kak en betaal’ simplistic,
literal interpretations.’…?”

Related [IMO]:
Does the concept of force majeur, [I think it's called - act
of God, & beyond our reasonable control] apply, so that,
without being formally recorded, because of the general
incapacity in the nation, and therefore also the Court
systems’ incapacity the statutory time-limits are relaxed ?
Re. equity it’s not ‘fair’ that a party is able to prevail
with unjust actions by manipulating procedural stuff
like time-limits.

It’s well known that Indian cases can go on for
generations, but I doubt that they don’t have statutory
time-limits ?

Re. equity, I observe that the SA ‘natives’ have a
‘better’ sense of natural justice, but they accept
the reality that money trumps justice – in SA.
———
Re equity:
SA follows UK company law, with a big time-lag.
So a company’s internal bussiness is controled by
majority-rule. So, if you, I & my wife save the life
of the wealthy old American, and he, as a reward
gives us [one third each] his Pty before he retires
to US, then your share is worth zero, by the strictly
technical [non equity] old-SA paradigm.
This because my wife & I will will vote ourselves as
directors and extract all profit as directors’ fees.
By contrast, UK had a number of equity-based jugments,
over-ruling [making exceptions to] the Foss v Harbottle
rule, which is the kind of technical [rather than equity]
concept that the 60’s-paradigm-SA-law-people love.

AFAIK, only the 1992 SCA Hullett case finally used the
UK equity precedents. And later cases still unjustly
screwed the minority, because the Judges are looking
for a simple/safe mechanistic paradigm, where they
don’t have to THINK/JUDGE what is fair & equitible,
even when statute allows them to use discretion.
Perhaps it’s part of the view: ‘die wet’ is handed
down from a higher, not to be understood power.
And the “that’s how we do it – understanding why, is
not for me” attitude.
————–
Related [IMO]:
I attended [the only of my life] fixed property execution
sale/auction. After the price was bid up to 3 times
market, and the genuine buyers had left, the sheriff
casually anounced that “there was a mistake and the
sale would be rectified”. So after the other stuff was
sold and most bidders had left. The scammed [IMO]
re-auction took place. I bid up to market. And when
I had a look at the applicable HC rules I couldn’t
see anything ‘illegal’. That the equity consideration
of a genuine free-market auction was to exist, was
[IMO] replaced by the 60’s-SA ‘dit is die wet’ view.

Am I right that the CC hopes that these little unjust
quirks of SA law will be ‘brought in’ for scrutiny and
fixing, hence increasingly cleansing the statute-set ?
An example being the CC:’Prince Albert execution of
RDP houses for near zero prices’, after the ’sommer
maklik’ procedure of moving it along without even the
oversight of a magistrate. CC tightened up the rules.

BTW, this is all irrelevant/academic, since SA too is
transforming: ZA -> Zimbabwe -> Zambia -> Zaire: home!

PS. I seek JHB attorney/counsel who’s familiar with the
principle: “a Pty. [especially small & family held] is
a quasi partnership, and hence fiduciary duty applies
inter se”. SALR of 1992 SCA Hullett… cited
P. Rabinowitz, who I can’t locate.
Perhaps he packed for Perth.

Shocking and scary. (And I don’t know the half of it!)

Things like this make me sick to my stomach.

Somewhat presumptuous I would say!

It would be prudent for you to employ a simple language when conveying your comments. What is the purpose of you confusing the poor professer and Mdu to an extend that they are unable to respond to your reflections