Constitutional Hill

Surprising insights on transformation from the Constitutional Court

What do we mean when we talk about transformation of the judiciary and of the legal culture? Do the members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the President believe in the substantive transformation of the legal culture and legal doctrine away from its colonially-inspired formalistic roots and away from the deeply embedded assumptions about free choice and equal bargaining power, (assumptions that promote the interests of the wealthy over those who are marginalised, disempowered or poor)?

Or do they use the term rather disingenuously to try and justify the appointment of essentially anti-poor, deeply formalistic judges whose judgments will disregard the interests of the marginalised and might even champion the interests of the rich and powerful? Moreover, which judges are best placed to take on the challenges of legal transformation — within the disciplining boundaries of the separation of powers doctrine — and which judges merely cling to notions of legal formalism to the detriment of the poor and marginalised and in resistance to the transformation of the legal culture?

These questions are all raised by the fascinating Constitutional Court judgment in the case of Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd, which was handed down today.

The majority judgment, written by Justice Edwin Cameron (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring), grapples with the transformative effects of the Constitution and the Rental Housing Act on the relationship between landlords and tenants. The judgment also attempts to empower Rental Housing Tribunals, Tribunals created by the democratic legislature to protect the rental housing market while also addressing the unequal power relations between landlords and tenants.

The minority judgment, written by acting judge Ray Zondo, who has reportedly been earmarked for appointment to the Constitutional Court (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring), displays a surprisingly formalistic and pre-constitutional attitude to the law that applies between landlords and tenants. The minority judgment, relying on what seems to me to be misguided technical arguments, would have upheld the freedom of a landlord to cancel a lease, hike rents or have tenants evicted who cannot afford the steep hikes on rentals, regardless of how unfair the landlord might have acted (all because they supposedly failed to plead their case correctly). The minority judgment also seems rather disrespectful of the principle of separation of powers, which would have required them to engage seriously with the Rental Housing Act, a piece of legislation passed by our democratic Parliament.

The narrow question in this case seemed to turn on the question of when a landlord could legally cancel a lease and evict its tenants. But behind this formal question lurked the larger question of how the constitutional protection against arbitrary eviction (enshrined in section 26(3)), as well as the protections afforded to tenants by the Rental Housing Act, limited the discretion of the landlord to evict tenants or raise rents.

The applicants are tenants in Lowliebenhof, a ten-storey block of flats in Braamfontein, in the inner city of Johannesburg. The flats are their homes, and they live there in terms of various leases. The respondent landlord bought the building, upgraded it, and then wanted to increase the rent. To do so, it cancelled the tenants’ leases, but offered them new tenancies, on identical terms, though at rents of between 100% and 150% higher than the original rents. The tenants resisted and the landlord brought eviction proceedings. The original lease only allowed an annual rent increase of between 10% and 15% and the cancellation of the leases were aimed at circumventing these clauses.

The tenants put forward several arguments about why the landlord was not permitted to cancel the leases to raise the rents, based on the Constitution, contract law and public policy as well as on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Rental Housing Act. In the end the majority argued that it was unnecessary to develop the common law of contract to deal with this case. Instead it relied on the provisions in Rental Housing Act, which state that the landlord may not engage in “unfair practices” in its dealings with tenants. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had found that this phrase did not apply to a case like the present because an unfair practice contemplated in the relevant section was “incessant and systemic conduct”, not a once off termination of a contract aimed at hiking the rents.

The majority rejected this view and said that the Rental Housing Tribunal should have decided whether there was an unfair practice in this case. It pointed out that the Act provides that an unfair practice ruling “may include a determination regarding the amount of rental payable by a tenant” or may relate to any termination of the lease in respect of rental housing property “on grounds that do not constitute an unfair practice “.

The Act states that when a Tribunal makes a determination about the rent to be charged, it “must be made in a manner that is just and equitable to both tenant and landlord”. In addition, the rent determination must take “due cognisance” of “(a) prevailing economic conditions of supply and demand; (b) the need for a realistic return on investment for investors in rental housing; and (c) incentives, mechanisms, norms and standards and other measures introduced by the Minister in terms of the policy framework on rental housing…”.

The majority thus found that the Act demands that a ground of termination must always be specified in the lease, but even where it is specified, the Act requires that the ground of termination must not constitute an unfair practice. A Tribunal can decide whether such a termination constituted an unfair practice — regardless of what the lease might have stipulated. The effect of these provisions is that contractually negotiated lease provisions are subordinate to the Tribunal’s power to deal with them as unfair practices.

It means that unfair practices are not determined by taking into account only the common law legal rights of a tenant or landlord, but by considering also their statutory interests. This makes it even clearer that the statutory scheme does not stop at contractually agreed provisions, and conduct in reliance on them. It goes beyond them. It subjects lease contracts and the exercise of contractual rights to scrutiny for unfairness in the light of both parties’ rights and interests.

Given this expansive interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (an interpretation influenced by the provisions in the Constitution that prohibits arbitrary evictions from housing and guarantees for everyone the right of access to housing), the majority held over final determination of the appeal (which was originally based on the request to have the tenants evicted) to enable the landlord and tenants, if so advised, to bring suitable proceedings before the Tribunal.

If the Tribunal should hold that the termination of the tenants’ leases was an unfair practice, and should the relief it grants include an order setting aside the termination, the eviction order granted against the applicants may have to be set aside. The parties must be granted leave to set the matter down in this Court for finalisation of the appeal on papers supplemented as they think fit.

The minority had no truck with this airy-fairy, bleeding heart, approach to the old fashioned area of contract law, which would have shown some deference to the democratically elected Parliament who passed the Rental Housing Act. Instead the minority would have preferred to rely on traditional contract law principles that would have allowed the landlord to cancel the lease, and to evict the tenants unless they agreed to a 150% hike in their rents. The minority argued that this case was never argued on the basis of the Rental Housing Act (although the SCA interpreted this Act narrowly in making a finding in favour of the landlord) and hence that the majority was wrong now to rely on this progressive piece of legislation to come to the assistance of the tenants.

The minority, seemingly channeling early twentieth Century British attitudes about the distinction between law, on the one hand, and values and morals, on the other, (as if there was an absolute distinction between these), argued that whether the landlord had engaged in unfair practices was not a legal question at all, but rather a value judgment requiring a judge to rely on moral values (not “law”). The Constitutional Court should therefore not have engaged with this issue at all, according to the minority.

Relying on the legal fiction that the parties “freely and voluntarily entered into leases with clauses that allowed either party to terminate them on notice and which did not say that the termination would not be permissible when effected for a certain purpose or when effected with a certain motive”, the minority would not have referred the matter back to the Rental Housing Tribunal (as the majority did).

Zondo AJ argued that:

the applicants may also have insisted on clauses that excluded certain reasons or motives for the termination of their leases. They did not do so and they have not put up any case to suggest that their bargaining position did not allow them to do so. The matter must then be decided upon the basis that, like the two tenants who included the unusual clauses that their leases could only be terminated at their discretion, the applicants, too, could have included a clause to the effect that their leases could not be terminated to enable the landlord to increase rents by amounts higher than those permitted by their leases. They failed to do so.

As Justice Froneman (in a concurring judgment) pointed out, this denial that it was permissible for the Constitutional Court to consider the interpretation of the Rental Housing Act (which might protect the tenants) in this case, was difficult to square with the law and the facts of this case.

Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the Act and came to the conclusion that the respondent’s right to cancel the leases was unaffected by its provisions. The majority found “that interpretation to be wrong. That the interpretation of the Act lies at the heart of this matter, however pleaded, has never been doubted… I thus have considerable difficulty in understanding how this appeal can be determined in this Court without interpreting the Act. Whether the Act applies to leases in general is a matter of law. So is the question whether the cancellation.”

Moreover, justice Froneman also dispensed with the deeply conservative and formalistic argument about the distinction between morals and value judgments on the one hand and legal questions on the other:

It is common cause that section 26 of the Constitution is implicated. Interpretation of what constitutes an “unfair practice” under the Act in light of this is thus inevitably a constitutional issue, a matter of law. Interpretation and application of the law under the Constitution is never a mechanical application of rules; it always involves a value judgment. Our Constitution and law are infused with moral values. The days of denying the value-laden content of law are long gone.

The various judgments therefore illustrate a clear distinction between one set of judges who are engaged with the transformative project and with the transformation of legal culture and the interpretation and application of law (all done while displaying suitable respect for the elected branches of government who passed the Rental Housing Act) and another set of judges stuck in a colonial-inspired formalist mindset (with potentially adverse consequences for disempowered tenants) who rejected the notion that constitutional values and the morals underpinning them, have any role to play in the adjudicating process in this case.

For those of us studying court judgments and legal articles produced by a (still largely) conservative academia, this insight will perhaps not come as a surprise. The surprising aspect of the judgement arise from discovering which judges came out on which side of this profoundly important judicial and philosophical divide.

  • sirjay jonson

    Prof: “The surprising aspect of the judgement arise from discovering which judges came out on which side of this profoundly important judicial and philosophical divide.”

    I’m confused, could you give reasons why this is a surprise?

  • sirjay jonson

    As a short aside, apologies:

    Another burning issue stonewalled by the ANC and its Alliance:

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=286030&sn=Detail&pid=71616

  • Chris (Not the right wing guy)

    To me the surprising aspect is that there is a minority judgement.

  • Anonymouse

    The minority, of course, including our new CJ – Mogoeng J Mogoeng. Who could have expected otherwise? Surprising that the judges that (almost?)everyone else (Ozone?) would have thought would have held otherwise, held for the marginalized. Something to think about when thinking of transformation? Right?

  • Maggadur Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Chris (The right wing guy)
    March 13, 2012 at 19:53 pm

    LOL Right Wing Guy,

    “To me the surprising aspect is that there is a minority judgement.”

    You really should not be surprised at the three wise men.

    One hears voices in his head and will stab anyone who stands in his way in the back then blame god.

    Another has a faulty memory and un-hears things.

    The third will be a CC judge if enough suckers can be found to stand alongside him as pretend applicants.

  • etienne marais

    Has Mogoeng CJ written any judgments yet ?
    (we know he does not much like reading, but writing should be ok)

  • Jonathan Klaaren

    Hi Pierre. It seems to me broadly speaking right, as you say, that it is a significant and disciplining content to the separation of powers doctine and practice that the majority in this case , with the rental housing act, and in other cases with legislation including the immigration act, is filling out through judgements such as this one. Regards JK

  • Pingback: Transformation and the Constitutional Court | Socio-Economic Rights

  • Maggadur Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    etienne marais
    March 13, 2012 at 22:55 pm

    Hey EM,

    Reading, writing – PAH!

    That’s for lesser mortals – god’s chosen ones do it differently.

    “… I am a Christian and I believe in God …”

    [Judge Gyanda] said the evidence in court made it abundantly clear that Naidoo portrayed himself as the son of God.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/03/14/only-god-can-judge-me—naidoo

    p.s. It seems like Judge Gyanda has no desire to move up the ranks in the judiciary, making snide remarks at his boss.

    In his judgment, Judge Gyanda said while the ordinary man on the street may find the siblings’ brainwashing theory laughable, experts have found that thousands of people around the world have been conned by charismatic leaders.

    I think the learned judge is exaggerating – it’s just President Zuma and 50% + 1 of the JSC (maybe a few others) who have been “conned”.

    On the other hand, he’s a judge – so maybe he knows more than he is revealing.

  • ozoneblue

    Maggadur Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 14, 2012 at 7:50 am

    “… I am a Christian and I believe in God …”

    I’m comfortable with that.

    At least he believes in something, unlike our modern day New Atheist FASCIST mob I would say.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    ozoneblue
    March 14, 2012 at 8:07 am

    Hey OB,

    Nice to see you again – I thought it was you that died!

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Baboons-body-kept-next-to-humans-20120313

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbender

    Sirjay, the decision came as huge surprise because most of us progressives assume that generally (but by no means always), it is BLACK judges who tend to be pro-poor, and WHITE judges that will adopt a more “colonial” (as Pierre puts it), jurisprudence.

    But here, astonishingly, all three WHITE judges came down in favour of the poor, while the reactionary minority was made up of black judges. This is truly staggering to those of us who have assumed that, all things being equal, our courts will become more progressive if they are TRANSFORMED on RACIAL lines.

  • ozoneblue

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbender
    March 14, 2012 at 9:17 am

    I’m sorry but TRANSFORMATION doesn’t necessarily imply charity and good white judges with a sense of morality either. What you are talking about here again is a bunch of bald men fighting over a comb.

    TRANSFORMATION means a fundamental shit in individual ownership patterns that is a trademark of all capitalist societies. Therefore the CC should be questioning why one chap should be allowed to seek rent based on his massive monopoly on the ownership of property.

  • etienne marais

    ozoneblue
    March 14, 2012 at 9:28 am

    “TRANSFORMATION means a fundamental shit…”

    Yeah, apparently that’s what some in government apparently think of transformation.

  • Brett Nortje

    Can someone please define ‘Landlord’? What does the Act say?

    Ivory-tower dwellers can hardly be expected to know that many homes in the townships are paid for by two or three zozos in the yard – rented out.

  • ozoneblue

    etienne marais
    March 14, 2012 at 9:48 am

    LOL. I’m sorry but the context should make the intended meaning clear.

  • Brett Nortje

    What is our President making of another majority/minority ConCourt judgment?

  • ozoneblue

    Brett Nortje
    March 14, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Very good observation. You are such a clevar man. Capitalism breeds more capitalism just like racism breeds more racism.

    Verstehen Sie?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 14, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Hey G,

    “What is our President making of another majority/minority ConCourt judgment?”

    While you were asleep, our PRESIDENT has spoken!

    There are dissenting judgments. You will find that the dissenting one has more logic than the one that enjoyed the majority.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    ozoneblue
    March 14, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Hey OB,

    “racism breeds more racism”.

    Well observed – this White/Black racism shit must be sorted out once and for all.

    What say you that we implement compulsory sterilisation (better still castration) of all WHITE men for the next five or six generations?

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele

    This SC is a good candidate for THE BENCH , let him forward his cv to the JSC.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/rape-of-daughter-not-too-serious-1.1255873

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 14, 2012 at 11:12 am

    “What say you that we implement compulsory sterilisation (better still castration) of all WHITE men for the next five or six generations?”

    I guess those WHITE Russians and Cubans who fought against Apartheid would not be pleased about that – might even put of a hell of a fight. Perhaps you should consider sterilizing only the WHITE BRITISH and the WHITE JEWS?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    ozoneblue
    March 14, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Hey OB,

    “I guess those WHITE Russians and Cubans who fought against Apartheid”

    EVERYBODY alive today (and those who are not) fought against Apartheid.

    White people DID NOT benefit from Apartheid.

    Apartheid left no lingering legacy.

    1994 sorted out ALL of Apartheid shit.

    p.s. “you should consider sterilizing only the WHITE BRITISH and the WHITE JEWS” – Racist!

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 14, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    “White people DID NOT benefit from Apartheid.”

    yes RICH white people did benefit from Apartheid. So did RICH coloureds, indians and Africans.

    Lets us therefore start by redistributing the IMMENSE wealth accrued by virue of Apartheid irrespective of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious creed.

    “Johannesburg mining magnate is South Africa’s first black billionaire. Born in the sprawling black township of Soweto and then trained as a lawyer, became first black partner at Bowman Gilfillan law firm in Johannesburg, before starting a contracting business doing mine scut work. Bought low-producing gold mine shafts in 1994, turned them profitable using lean, mean management style. Since then built $875 million (sales) mining conglomerate, African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), with interests in a wide swath of minerals: platinum, nickel, chrome, iron, manganese and coal. Benefited from South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) laws, which mandate that companies be at least 26% black-owned in order to get a government mining license. Also holds a 5.5% stake in Sanlam, a publicly traded financial services company outside Cape Town.”

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Patrice-Motsepe_RS9H.html

  • ozoneblue

    “Bought low-producing gold mine shafts in 1994, turned them profitable using lean, mean management style.”

    One wonders how many [black] workers were retrenched and left unemployed. Maggot please do some research for us – ask PdV if he can recollect any memories bout a certain “Cold War”: it very much defined much of 20th century history except of course if you are a self-loathing “white liberal” that have been lobotomized by Dr. Katumba.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    “Interpretation and application of the law under the Constitution is never a mechanical application of rules; it always involves a value judgment. Our Constitution and law are infused with moral values.”

    One would have expected to hear this type of statement from the divinely annointed Chief Justice; instead he sits on the side of those who interpret the law in the conservative & formalistic manner that annoys the Prof so much.

    Ofcourse, the nice thing about vague words like “transformation” is that they can be moulded to fit whatever definition suits the user?

  • Zoo Keeper

    So basically the CC has actually broken substantially with legal tradition and juristic practice by making a case for the appellants?

    Even if the majority could have been right with the application of the RHA, if it is not put in front of them, how can they effectively create an argument for a party with a straight face?

    Set the emotive arguments aside and look at what the CC has actually done here and it is a dangerous precedent in terms of the deciding of cases, any cases.

    The minority tread the usual juristic ground of deciding what was in front of them, like the CC did in Barkhuizen v Napier for example where the lack of facts was a problem and the CC did not reach out to rescue bad argument (such as a correct intrepretation of S36).

    Yet here the majority decided to take the one party’s case and develop a successful argument for it.

    Dangerous ground for the CC to try and break into. I would side with the minority and say to the appellants – I cannot rescue your case for you.

  • Donovan

    Prof, in many parts one has to agree with your nuanced approach to how the law can be used as a force for good, namely transformation.

    However, what surprises me is how a law passed so as to protect a the poor and is utilised more by those it was not intended to. A case in point is the much celebrated Grootboom case. My understanding was that this was to assist so-called informal settlers or settlements, or as we called them in the eighties, squatter camps. I always think of Crossroads in Cape Town. Today, though, the prevention of illegal eviction is used by many renting townhouses so as to force their ‘landlord’ to sell to them. I know of more than one case where a person has bought a townhouse as an investment, and then struggle to get their rental, and whenever they tried to the PIE act was used.

    In the case you refer to, I am wondering how many people invest in Braamfontein, Hillbrow, Berea, Bellevue Estate, Yeoville and other inner city areas. My guess would be very few. In your summary of matters Prof. you indicate that the person who purchased the building, made improvements, and therefore I think obviously had an idea or vision of the type of rental scheme s/he wanted. These improvements were enjoyed by the tenants, and they did not try and stop them (or at least your summary does not raise that). So who pay’s for these improvements? How can you attract investment in these so-called ‘red-lined’ areas if an investor who becomes an owner requires permission before s/he can improve the asset they purchased?

    As much as I agree with you that a formalistic stuffy approach is not required. Similarly an approach that is equally formalistic that any ‘rich’ person is a bad person is as detrimental to transformation.

  • Lisbeth

    When someone who owns a property (a ‘landlord’) decides to let some or all of that property to a ‘tenant’, it is a commercial transaction. A landlord is not a charity; a landlord incurs expenses just by maintaining his property.

    It could be said that this (majority) judgement means that no landlord will ever upgrade his property again because higher rents will not materialise. There will be more derelict buildings than ever before, hijacked by Nigerians, resulting in misery for the hapless tenants. At some stage, the buildings will have to be demolished and the tenants made homeless.

    Ultimately, the rental housing market will become obsolete.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Lisbeth
    March 14, 2012 at 16:03 pm

    Hey Lisbeth,

    “Ultimately, the rental housing market will become obsolete.”

    Hopefully!

  • Dmwangi

    I have few qualms about the majority’s ruling.

    However, I cannot comprehend how PdV– a self-avowed Nietzchean moral skeptic– is now advocating natural law.

    Is the academy becoming employer of last resort for the otherwise unemployable?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbender

    @ Lisbeth

    “this (majority) judgement means that no landlord will ever upgrade his property again because higher rents will not materialise.”

    Lisbeth, it is not for the CC to consider the long term consequences of its decision. Braamfontein is a forum of principle, not of consequence. Our values-based Constitution (universally acclaimed as the finest in the world), has no room for your cheap utility calculus.

    With respect, I now see you as an UNTRANSFORMED BENTHAMITE!

    Thanks.

  • ozoneblue

    Donovan
    March 14, 2012 at 15:04 pm

    “Similarly an approach that is equally formalistic that any ‘rich’ person is a bad person is as detrimental to transformation.”

    That is certainly not true. As long as that “rich person” is not a White who is not extremely sorry about Apartheid.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    “… cancelled the tenants’ leases, but offered them new tenancies, on identical terms, though at rents of between 100% and 150% higher than the original rents.”

    Is the issue not that the landlord cancelled the previous lease agreement, (which had no provision for such a steep & sudden increase in the rent) solely for the purpose of doubling the rent?
    Shouldn’t he simply have given his tenants the neccessary notice & then put everyone out, to start recruiting new tenants into his renovated building?
    How does one conclude that the rent increase was justified since the extent of the said improvemtns is not clear.
    Eg: Putting a new coat of paint on a ten story building might set you back a bit as a landlord but does it justify doubling the rent?

  • ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    March 14, 2012 at 16:11 pm

    “However, I cannot comprehend how PdV– a self-avowed Nietzchean moral skeptic– is now advocating natural law.”

    It baffles me too. I guess as long as the Will to Power is exercised by the Black majority in a democratic way undisturbed by the Will to Power as exercised by the whitish Ubermenschen minority exceeding their Power quotas even more than the Jews and the Indians.

    Nietzsche must be be spinning in his grave.

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    I think it’s far to say most rich people are bad – after all didn’t some french guy once say “behind every great fortune is a great crime”? How does one get rich without screwing someone else over then hmm?

  • ozoneblue

    “Richard Rubin is one of the bold, trendy developers who is dedicated to making city living a luxurious,”

    http://www.eprop.co.za/news/article.aspx?idArticle=7669

    Nietzchean Critical Race Theory is that the problem remains the Jews/Indians who controls all of history and the South African property market too.

  • tim

    This is pure gold:

    “Lisbeth, it is not for the CC to consider the long term consequences of its decision. Braamfontein is a forum of principle, not of consequence. Our values-based Constitution (universally acclaimed as the finest in the world), has no room for your cheap utility calculus.

    With respect, I now see you as an UNTRANSFORMED BENTHAMITE!”

    MDF, you made my day!

  • Brett Nortje

    Yes, it desrves to be ‘quote of the week’.

    Dworky is on a roll.

    But note how everyone is shying away from the point Zooky made, which strikes rather close to home, with all the implications for the independence of the judiciary and the idea of equality before the law?

  • Lisbeth

    “MDF, you made my day!” – tim

    Mine, too. Actually.

    Thanks!

  • Anonymouse

    Maggadur Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 14, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Well, Maggs, you’re Hindu, I’m Christian – I know we’re not going to find each other on that topic.

    However, as far as your feeling is concerned that Judge Guyanda in the Naidoo / Lotter trial has exagerated that thousands of people around the world have been conned by charismatic leaders:

    Remember Jonestown, Guyana, November 18, 1978? … Rev Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples’ Temple (mind you, he joined the US Communist Party in 1951 before becoming a cult leader! – shows you what communism can make one do, eventually …) brainwashed 909 Temple members to commit suicide by ingesting cyanide, … after the adult Sect members had forcibly caused approximately 200 children to ingest cyanide (poor kids – they never even had the chance to decide whether they wanted to believe in God or not).

    Then there was that other case of the Doomsday Sect in China somewhere, who used cyanide gas on a train – what is it with these guys and cuanide?

    And, of course, there are the islamist suicide bombers and 9/11 trash, who have all been conned that they would please Allah and have a number of virgins waiting for them at the Peraly Gates …

    This Naidoo guy (any relationship?) could therefore surely have conned the Lotter siblings into believing that he was the Third Son of God, and that they had to commit parenticide for their salvation.

    Any way – OzoneBlue has not yet responded to my question above – whether he was surprized that the majority (mainly white) CC judges decided pro-poor, whilst the minority (all black) too a rather conservative stance and decided the matter pro-rich (I wonder whether the company that was taken to court also contributes to the ANC coffers.) What do you think?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Anonymouse
    March 14, 2012 at 18:22 pm

    Hey Doc Mouse,

    “However, as far as your feeling is concerned that Judge Guyanda in the Naidoo / Lotter trial has exagerated that thousands of people around the world have been conned by charismatic leaders”.

    LOL!

    Methinks that you missed my snide remark – I agree with Judge Guyanda.

    Our M² would have us believe that god chose him to be CJ – I doubt if people in their multitudes believe him.

    God neither spoke to the now CJ, nor deployed him – never mind what voices he claims to have heard in his head.

    Either he lied or is mad – I don’t think he is mad. Nor do I think he is trustworthy – certainly not the kind of fellow whom I would be friendly with.

    I do think he stabbed the DCJ in the back.

    The only reason he was appointed is because Zuma and co are shit scared of having truly independent minded and deep thinking CJ and DCJ.

    It was a silly deployment anyway. An intellectually weak, sycophantic CJ is no more of value to crooks than a strong, capable one. It’s one of the reasons for having 11 on the CC.

    p.s. Do you or anyone else know of a single invitation extended by any institution of material stature, to our CJ to present a paper or make a keynote address?

    I would love to read what he has to written (@EM – no snide remarks about him not being able to read!).

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    p.p.s. “This Naidoo guy (any relationship?)”.

    Doc – OB will confirm that all 1.2 billion of us coolies in India are related. All Naidoos and all Naidus are more closely related than the rest. We also all look the same, act in similar ways, eat bunny chows, wear dhotis …

  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 14, 2012 at 18:46 pm

    “Doc – OB will confirm that all 1.2 billion of us coolies in India are related.”

    I suppose much like all 1.2 billion racist Whites?

  • ozoneblue

    Anonymouse
    March 14, 2012 at 18:22 pm

    “Any way – OzoneBlue has not yet responded to my question above – whether he was surprized that the majority (mainly white) CC judges decided pro-poor, whilst the minority (all black) too a rather conservative stance and decided the matter pro-rich (I wonder whether the company that was taken to court also contributes to the ANC coffers.) What do you think?”

    I don’t know what to think. What would the evil Jews and Indians decide?

  • Anonymouse

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 14, 2012 at 18:46 pm
    p.p.s. “This Naidoo guy (any relationship?)”.

    Doc – OB will confirm that all 1.2 billion of us coolies in India are related. All Naidoos and all Naidus are more closely related than the rest. We also all look the same, act in similar ways, eat bunny chows, wear dhotis …

    Hah, hah, haaaah! You know, Des and Dawn Lindberg once held a show down in Chatsworth, started a ‘singalong’ and, at a certain stage, Des shouted: “Are you ready!?”, and the crowd shouted back: “Nooo! Naidoooo!” any way, I kinda like bunny chows, and, I’m not even Hindian!

    OzoneBlue. What evil Jews are you talking about? The only Indian guy there, however, is blind. Don’t think he sees race or colour. Any way, he decided pro-poor. And, he has written many good judgments whilst serving on the CC Bench. He’s a very good judge that is constitutionally transformed, despite his handicap.

  • Lisbeth

    How was this judgement “pro-poor”?

    If the judiciary – or the government for that matter – are going to be “anti-rich”, they will not be doing the poor any favours at all.

    The so-called “rich”, be they landlords or employers, are the ones who provide (rental accommodation/jobs). Discourage the rich, and the poor will get nothing.

  • Brett Nortje

    Anonymouse says:
    March 14, 2012 at 20:17 pm

    So, Dr Mouse, you disagree with me that the ConCourt set the tone for the kleptocracy in Swartbooi!

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
    March 14, 2012 at 16:06 pm

    Er, um – ever heard ‘sub-prime’?

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 14, 2012 at 20:42 pm

    Hey G,

    “Er, um – ever heard ‘sub-prime’?”

    No, not really.

    But I did hear of Greenspan who said “I was right all long, for forty full years”.

    p.s. Dmwangi taught Greenspan economics.

    Hey Dm – welcome back. How’s the gardener? Is he looking amused?

  • ozoneblue

    Lisbeth
    March 14, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    “Discourage the rich, and the poor will get nothing.”

    As long as the rich are Black and not Jews/Indians I assume?

  • ozoneblue

    That racist White commie bastard Gorbachev has just bounced back.

    “On Monday, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev used a speech at the Forum to highlight the global extent of the problem.

    Mr Gorbachev, the founding president of Green Cross International, said: “The deficit of freshwater is becoming increasingly severe and large-scale – whereas, unlike other resources, there is no substitute for water.

    “Continuation of water consumption at 20th Century rates is no longer possible.”

    He said that his five decades of experience in politics had convinced him that the global water crisis was “closely related to the flaws of contemporary economics and politics”.

    “We therefore need to rethink the goals of economic development,” he explained.

    “The economy needs to be reoriented to goals that include public goods such as a sustainable environment, people’s health, education, culture and social cohesion, including an absence of glaring gaps between the rich and the poor.”"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17343034

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    ozoneblue
    March 14, 2012 at 21:17 pm

    Hey OB,

    “As long as the rich are Black and not Jews/Indians I assume?”

    That’s plain silly.

    Rich Jews/Indians don’t get “discouraged” – they get richer (without moaning).

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Brett Nortje
    March 14, 2012 at 20:42 pm

    Hey G,

    “Er, um – ever heard ‘sub-prime’?”

    Er, um – ever heard of “securitisation”.

    Dm will explain it to you in detail – I have no idea what it means.

  • Gwebecimele
  • ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
    March 14, 2012 at 21:37 pm

    “Rich Jews/Indians don’t get “discouraged” – they get richer (without moaning).”

    I have noted. especially in India where the rich racist Indians rule over the 1.199999999 billion coolies and the other lower castes.

  • Dmwangi

    ‘Lisbeth
    March 14, 2012 at 20:31 pm
    How was this judgement “pro-poor”?

    If the judiciary – or the government for that matter – are going to be “anti-rich”, they will not be doing the poor any favours at all.

    The so-called “rich”, be they landlords or employers, are the ones who provide (rental accommodation/jobs). Discourage the rich, and the poor will get nothing.’

    Supply-side economics from a woman who doesn’t know what the money supply is. Brilliant!

    Maggs: Greenspan is not much of an economist. And neither are you if you are so ill-informed that you could confuse my views with his. But please do explain your take on Keynes’ view of quantity theory vis-a-vis monetary endogeneity.

  • Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com

    Dmwangi
    March 14, 2012 at 21:54 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “Greenspan is not much of an economist.”

    I knew it that you will be able to enlighten Brett.

    “And neither are you if you are so ill-informed that you could confuse my views with his.” – I’m glad to learn that you are smarter than Greenspan.

    “But please do explain your take on Keynes’ view of quantity theory vis-a-vis monetary endogeneity.”

    Keynes was an idiot. He thought that money grew on trees. He said that if government put money in bottles buried money than the economy will grow. Everybody knows that it won’t work – you have to grow it outside the bottle.

    I dunno about this “monetary endogeneity” thingy. All I know is that economics is an exact science.

    p.s. I’m am certainly not an economist. Chris will tell you that I sell T-Shirts at the street corner for a living. I buy them at R360 per dozen, sell them at R30 each and make a handsome profit.

  • ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele
    March 14, 2012 at 21:42 pm

    It is really unfortunate that each and every innocent little action taken by some most hated individuals and organizations should be twisted out of context and imbued with sinister motives and intent by our much respected independent media.

    “Every year Maxwell speaks to Fortune 500 companies, international government leaders, and organizations as diverse as the United States Military Academy at West Point and the National Football League. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week best-selling author, Maxwell was one of 25 authors and artists named to Amazon.com’s 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame. Three of his books, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Developing the Leader Within You, and The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader have each sold over a million copies.[6]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Maxwell

  • Paul Kearney

    An interesting analysis and more like what I would expect from an academic but it is both funny and sad to see how race and political correctness has to be inserted even into light academic writing. So the phrases “the transformative project and with the transformation of legal culture and..” and “stuck in a colonial-inspired formalist mindset (with potentially adverse consequences for disempowered tenants)” seem to have no meaning except to assert PdV’s allegiance to populist sloganeering a la Julius Malema. Sad stuff.

    I suppose if one writes a technical article about cement you are expected to note that it’s whitish colour is a colonial inspired and should be transformed.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbender

    It is typical of the New Atheist bigotry of the white media that it cries foul over the instruction from our Chief Justice that Judges attend an American Evangelical meeting. The fact is that 95% of our people are Christians. I say that a value-based interpretation of our Constitution demands that judges absorb the religious ethos of the African masses. Only then will they be in a position to apply the Constitution in a manner that eschews the sterile liberal secularism of colonial whitists — in favour of the Christocentric message of UBUNTU: “I am a person through others.”

  • Zoo Keeper

    Paul Kearney

    Well put.

    Lisbeth and Donovan

    Good points on the rental thing. I wonder if our hand-wringing academic realizes that if he and the CC judges discourage the investment market (where the poor can also get rich), there will be less tax and thus they will eventually be out of a tax-payer funded job?

  • Alfred Norman

    Wow!!! What’s a Place it is!!! It is a very wonderful looking & article. I am looking that kind of article. I am always interest to read judgmental article. It is a wonderful judgment article I ever seen before. Keep it up friend
    Tampa Movers