University of Botswana Law Journal - PULP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

180 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNAL DECEMBER 2010 new company (Section 4). All employees of the parastatal will be transferred to the new company (Section 5). 1.4 LAND ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ACT NO. 43 OF 2010 This Act establishes the Land Administration Authority as a body corporate with perpetual succession and common seal capable of suing and being sued in its own name (Section 4). The main function of the authority is to act as the government’s agency responsible for land administration. In discharging its functions it operates under the general supervision of the minister responsible for land affairs (Section 5). The authority is governed by a board of directors (Section 6). The director general administers and is responsible for the daily operations of the authority (Section 9). The board is responsible for appointing such number and grades of heads of departments of the authority as the board may deem necessary for the efficient and effective discharge of its functions. The appointments are made on the recommendation of the director general. All other officers and staff of the authority are appointed by the director general (Section 21). In terms of section 27 of the Act all property which immediately before the commencement of the Act was vested in the government for use in land administration will vest in the authority upon the commencement of the Act. 2. JUDICIAL DECISIONS 2.1 CONTEMPT OF COURT Lerotholi Polytechnic and Another v Blandinah Lisene Court of Appeal Civil Case No. 25 of 2009 (delivered on 11 June 2010) (unreported). Mrs Lisene (the respondent) was dismissed from her employment as a lecturer on the 12 March, 2007 following a disciplinary hearing at which she was found guilty of gross misconduct. She referred a claim of unfair dismissal to the Directorate of Dispute Prevention and Resolution (DDPR) for arbitration. The DDPR dismissed the claim and found in favour of the employer. Immediately after this the employer engaged the services of another lecturer to replace the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the DDPR’s award the respondent approached the Labour Court for an order reviewing and setting aside the award. She was successful in this regard. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent and directed the employer to pay her salary from the date of the purported dismissal. The employer appealed the decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Labour Court.
RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS – LESOTHO 181 The respondent presented herself at work the following day after judgment was granted in her favour. The employer, being in a dilemma since it had already replaced her position after the DDPR’s award, requested her to stay at home until the question of what she could do was resolved. She was also told that in the meantime arrangements would be made for the payment of her salary together with arrear salary. The respondent was paid her back-pay together with salary during the months she spent at home. Subsequent to this she launched contempt of court proceedings against the employer in the Labour Appeal Court alleging that instead of reinstating her, the employer wanted to retrench her. The Labour Appeal Court held that the employer was in contempt because it failed to allow the respondent to resume her teaching responsibilities. The employer appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Labour Appeal Court on the ground that the respondent failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that employer’s non-compliance with the reinstatement order was wilful and mala fide. It held that the employer was in a dilemma after the reinstatement order, but that the employer did not sit back when faced with this situation. The appeal was therefore allowed. 2.2 SUCCESSION TO CHIEFTAINSHIP Neko Tsepo Qefate Nkuebe v Minister of Local Government and Three Others Court of Appeal Civil Case No. 41 of 2009 (delivered on 23 April 2010) (Unreported) This matter concerned a contest for the office of principal chief of Quthing and Sebapala after the demise of the incumbent Chief Qefate Nkuebe. The appellant (applicant in the court a quo) is the third son born of the late Chieftainess Mahlabathe Nkuebe while the marriage between herself and the chief was still subsistent. The family had nominated the fourth Respondent (his eldest brother) as successor to the office of the chief. The appellant applied to the High Court to stay the process leading to the final succession to the principal chieftainship of Quthing and Sebapala pending finalization of the matter. His basis was that he was the only legitimate son and successor of the late chief. The appellant wanted an order, which would subject him and the fourth respondent to a DNA test in order to bring this matter to finality. This application was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal the main issue was who was entitled to succeed to the office of the chief. This question was decided on the basis of section 10 of the Chieftainship Act No. 22 of 1968, which is to the effect that, the first born legitimate son of the only marriage should succeed. The court noted that under customary law, the fourth respondent would be regarded as the deceased’s legitimate son because he was so accepted through customary rites. The
Page 2 and 3:
UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNAL
Page 4 and 5:
2 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNA
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
10 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURN
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 41 and 42:
The right to maternal health care:
Page 43 and 44:
THE RIGHT TO MATERNAL HEALTH CARE 4
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Between judicial enabling and adver
Page 85 and 86:
UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED IN BOTSWANA 8
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117:
Page 120 and 121:
118 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOUR
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 133 and 134: Procurement law in Nigeria: Challen
Page 135 and 136: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 133 prov
Page 137 and 138: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 135 Bure
Page 139 and 140: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 137 To f
Page 141 and 142: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 139 Obje
Page 143 and 144: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 141 work
Page 145 and 146: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 143 What
Page 147 and 148: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 145 Anot
Page 149 and 150: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 147 foun
Page 151 and 152: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 149 due
Page 153: PROCUREMENT LAW IN NIGERIA 151 8. C
Page 156 and 157: 154 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOUR
Page 171 and 172: 169 Limits of fair dealing with lit
Page 173 and 174: LITERARY WORKS IN INDIA 171 Section
Page 175 and 176: LITERARY WORKS IN INDIA 173 tilt ag
Page 177: LITERARY WORKS IN INDIA 175 purpose
Page 187 and 188: 185 1. INTRODUCTION ZIMBABWE J. Pfu
Page 189 and 190: RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS - ZIMBABW
Page 191 and 192: RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS - ZIMBABW
Page 193 and 194: UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNAL
show all

University of Botswana Law Journal - PULP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?