|
It's pointless trying to describe a situation which is too far removed from
the audience's 'world view'. Best just accumulate evidence and wait
for 'suitable confirming conditions'.
I've just fetched:------------
http://www.concourt.gov.za//summary.php?case_id=\
13068&PHPSESSID=c17a44f0472e3095840aabeccf09491
NK v Minister of Safety and Security - Summary of judgment
Constitutional Court - CCT 52/04 Hearing date: 10 May 2005
Judgment date: 13 June 2005
The applicant seeks to recover damages in delict from the Minister of
Safety and Security for the harm she suffered as a result of being
raped and assaulted in the early hours of 27 March 1999. Her
assailants were three uniformed and on-duty police sergeants. Ms K
who had had an argument with a boyfriend with whom she had been out
for the evening was looking for a telephone to call home when she met
the police officers at approximately 4 o92clock in the morning. They
offered her a lift home which she gratefully accepted. Thereafter
they took her to a deserted place, raped and abandoned her. The three
policemen were subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping, and
sentenced to life in prison by the Johannesburg High Court.
.....
The judgment emphasizes that the Constitution mandates members of the
police to protect community members and that for this mandate to be
performed efficiently reasonable trust must be placed in members of
the police service by members of the public.
The Court accordingly holds that in these circumstances the Minister
is liable to pay damages to the applicant for the wrongful conduct of
the policemen and refers the matter back to the High Court for the
amount to be determined by that Court.
--- end of extract.
I guess the full judgment would be available at:--
http://www.concourt.gov.za/\
/judgment.php?case_id=13068&PHPSESSID=c17a44f0472e3095840aa\
beccf094918
--------
This report relates to the second leg of my pending appeal re.
municipal billing chaos dispute; ie. condonation for late filing.
Firstly note the date of the above crime: 27 March 1999;
and the date of the hopefully, final decision.
On 15 June 2000 I visited, for the first time, a recommended
lawer [after he had missed the appointment of 2 days ealier].
When I showed him my latest letter to the municipal
authorities, asking them to accept my calculations, or
disprove them, he said I'd have to pay, since I had
admitted, in writing to owing [in Dec 1999 the accumulated
with-held amount being] more than the claim [of the wrongly
calculated amount in April]. Being a science graduate and knowing
that 'cause' cannot come AFTER 'effect', I asked him to give me his
advice in writing THEN ! He wrote that a should either:
1. pay the claim OR
2. file and affidavit applying for rescission of the default judgment,
-- before the 20 days after knowledge time limit.
Because the pending sale of execution was to be soon after the
pending long week-end [important], I immediately bought a
carbon-book and wrote my 'affidavit'.
Normally affidavits are certified at the nearest police-station.
But the above constitutional-case-report describes the 'thug
like environment' at S.African police stations at that time,
and I believed [which was true] that the clerk of the court's
[filing] office would have someone qualified to certify.
The Courts close between 13:00 & 14:00, and at 14:30 the
clerk's [public] door was closed - before the long weekend.
I panicked. Since I could hear talking behind the 'staff only
entrance door', I knocked and entered, and was relieved
that they accepted and stamped my duplicate copy of my
'affidavit'. I forgot to ask them to certify it.
So:
* due to the general admin chaos [particularly at that time],
the Clerk of the court's office 'closed' early for the pending
long weekend. And I didn't get my 'affidavit' certified.
* obviously the opponent [gov. dept.] denied that it WAS an affidavit.
* a later tape recorded telephonic query to the chief clerk about
the incident, which was casually re-buffed by "you just had to use
the other door" plus photographs of CLEAR
"staff entrance only" were made known to be evidence at the
appeal hearing. Judges Hoffman & Hussain [underhandedly]
avoided having to consider the court's irregularity [re. closing
before time] and said/wrote "for the purpose of XYZ I'll accept
that it WAS an affidavit, but you still fail,'cos the amount
admitted by your spreadsheet [which was compiled months after
the default judgment] shows that you owed more than the claim
at the time of summons to court.'
Q1 - can the record of the stamped/filed paper being accepted
as an affidavit be used in the next stage of litigation ?
Q2 - is it true that the rules re. time limits need to be respected by
citizens and respect is a subjective concept. It's not intended to be
a game of luck, but rather a disciplining of the CONCIOUS actions
of the citizenry. SO if eg. the citizen 'drops into a coma for 6 months'
this would be taken into consideration in 'civilised western law' ?
Q3 - my evidenced attempt to comply within hours, clearly shows
a serious respect for time limits, or not ?
Q4 - how do I get over/around political correctness: the judges
have to pretend that new-S. African society operates as per
the 1944 colonial legislation ?
Q5 - if Court building disappeared into an earthquake crater,
would they acknowledge that the clerk's office was 'difficult to find'.
PS. just last month during rebuilding, the Clerk of the court's
office had no phone connection for weeks.
PS. a further recorded telephone conversation confirmed that my
'written reasons' were not available per rule specified time.
When I collected them later they had been back dated.
This fact appeared in the record for the appeal and also was
pretended away or considered irrelevant by the Judges.
I.e. they didn't want evidence of the Court not complying
with time rules exposed.
This is only a fraction of the 'late condonation' argument
[and related to the latest constitutional judgment] but I wonder
if I have succeeded in conveying the facts ?
Q6 - what do you think about the casual revelation that the
record has been lost by the court [so I'll have to compile
replacements] ?
Q7 - do you think your US view of 'timiously' is applicable to me ?
Q8 - have you read about the [east] Indian 'court time' ?
Thanks,
== Chris Glur.
|
| |
| |
|
