Makhanya v University of Zululand - LexisNexis South Africa

20occurred), could a plea of res judicata have succeeded in relation to theother.[46] The existence of a right might nonetheless be relevant to a claimasserting another right arising from the same facts but in an altogetherdifferent context. The fact that the plaintiff already enjoys a right arisingfrom those facts (for example, a contractual right) might be thought by thecourt to be sufficient to protect his or her interests, and thus persuade it thatanother right (a delictual right) should not be recognised. That is whatoccurred in Lillicrap. The court found that the company was capable ofprotecting itself adequately by its contract, and thus it was not necessary forthe law to recognise a delictual right in addition. 28 But that has nothing to dowith jurisdiction. It has to do with whether the claim is a good claim.EXPLANATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FORJURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES[47] With all that in mind it is difficult to see how a jurisdictionalchallenge could be maintained in this case, or in any of the cases I havementioned. The claim in each case falls clearly within the ordinary power ofthe high court, and the fact that the claimant had another claim (to enforceLRA rights) is irrelevant (on the jurisdictional issue).[48] Explanations that have been advanced, both in this and other cases,have always resolved themselves, in one way or another, into one or other ofthree unacceptable propositions. I propose in this case to deal with eachexplanation separately. Two of those explanations presented themselves inthis case. I will deal with each under a heading that summarises the28See 500F-501H.