Woman successfully challenges Matrimonial Property Act

The Cape High Court recently handed down a ruling in favour of a woman who challenged the constitutional validity of a section of the Matrimonial Property Act. Vanessa van der Merwe went to court after the Road Accident Fund refused to pay damages in an accident claim. Van der Merwe had claimed after her former husband ran over her twice in his car in 1999, reports Business Day. The fund disputed its liability because an injured person, married in community of property, may not sue for damages arising from an offence that a spouse has committed. Van der Merwe argued in court the section infringed her right to equality contained in the Constitution. The section applies only to people married in community of property. Acting Judge Thandazwa Ndita ruled in September that by use of the words ‘other than damages for patrimonial loss’, the section unfairly discriminated on the grounds of marital status against spouses married in community of property. Patrimonial loss covers the loss of income and income-earning capacity, and medical expenses she had to incur because of her injuries.

Constitutional Court strikes blow against spousal abuse

The Constitutional Court struck a blow against spousal abuse when it ruled on the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence Act, Act 118 of 1998, dismissing an application for leave to appeal by Ahmed Raffik Omar, whose claim that the Act infringed on his right to a fair trial had been rejected by the Natal Provincial Division of the High Court. The case stemmed from an abusive relationship between Omar and his wife, which resulted in several protection orders being issued against him. Omar’s challenge was against Section 8 of the Act, which provides that, under certain circumstances, a member of the SA Police Service could arrest Omar if the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that his wife was in imminent danger (a suspended warrant of arrest). Omar contended this was unconstitutional, as it infringed on his right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be informed of the charge against him, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to remain silent; as well as his right to freedom and security of the person.
Judgment (PDF file)
See also a report on the IoL site

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

High Court rules Maintenance Courts have extended powers

The Cape High Court has handed down a landmark ruling in a maintenance case. The court, reports the Cape Times, has ruled that Maintenance Courts can grant any order to ensure that maintenance orders are satisfied. This includes interdicting institutions from making payments to maintenance defaulters so that the money can be made to complainants instead. Previously, complainants had to consult advocates and approach the High Court – a step which has proved too costly for many. The ruling, by Justice Deon van Zyl, was made in the case of a woman who took action against the maintenance magistrate and maintenance officer of a Wynberg Maintenance Court after battling for 10 years to obtain monthly maintenance for her son. The Maintenance Court said it was unable to assist her in granting an order to obtain funds from the maintenance defaulter’s pension. Judge Van Zyl granted an order confirming that the Maintenance Act provided the Maintenance Court with extensive jurisdiction to make any order to enforce a maintenance order which had not been satisfied.
Full Cape Times report

Court overrides family wishes on blood transfusion

The Pretoria High Court has granted doctors at the Pretoria Academic hospital an urgent court order enabling them to give a month-old baby a blood transfusion. The blood transfusion had been opposed by the baby’s family who are Jehovah's Witnesses, says a Mail & Guardian Online report. The infant is one of twins born prematurely on September 20. They were placed in an incubator, but one boy developed complications. He became anaemic and the doctors told the family he needed a blood transfusion urgently. But the family refused. On Saturday night, doctors asked the court to override the family's wishes that the child should not be given a transfusion. Before granting the order, the judge also heard from the family, who persisted in their opposition to a transfusion.
Full report on Mail & Guardian Online site

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.

 

California passes gay marriage Bill

California has become the first state in the US to pass legislation allowing gays to marry. The Assembly, reports The Washington Post, approved the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would allow marriage between two people rather than only between a man and a woman. The state Senate passed the Bill last week. Opponents of the legislation, including conservative Republicans, have argued that the law must be stopped because it constitutes another assault on the sanctity of the family. Analysts say the Bill puts Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the hot seat. ‘I think it's a slam-dunk that he's going to have to veto the Bill and hope that the anger in the gay community doesn't spill over into other groups,’ said one.
Full report in The Washington Post

 

Supplied courtesy of Legalbrief Today.