Makhanya v University of Zululand - LexisNexis South Africa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40APPEARANCESFor Appellant:R PillemerInstructed by:Henwood Britter & Caney, DurbanLovius Block Attorneys, BloemfonteinFor Respondent:L R NaidooInstructed by:Garlicke & Bousfield Inc, DurbanClaude Reid Attorneys, Bloemfontein
Page 1 and 2: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALREPUBLIC
Page 4 and 5: 4[4] Whatever explanation is given
Page 6 and 7: 6ratio for the order that was made.
Page 8 and 9: 8ordinary power to consider claims
Page 10 and 11: 10[20] Much the same happened to Ms
Page 12 and 13: 12excluding the ordinary power of t
Page 14 and 15: 14[31] The disposal of a jurisdicti
Page 16 and 17: 16Training, Eastern Cape, 23 and th
Page 18 and 19: 18TWO CLAIMS ARISING FROM COMMON FA
Page 20 and 21: 20occurred), could a plea of res ju
Page 22 and 23: 22present purposes. Upon that suppo
Page 24 and 25: 24The Second Unsound Proposition: A
Page 26 and 27: 26[62] The approach taken by the co
Page 28 and 29: 28should be the subject only of cla
Page 31 and 32: 31court found itself able to find t
Page 33 and 34: 33what constitutes the ratio of a c
Page 35 and 36: 35[88] While the ratio of a decisio
Page 37 and 38: 37CONCLUSIONS[94] To summarise, I a
Page 39: 39agreement had not been establishe

Makhanya v University of Zululand - LexisNexis South Africa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?