This matter concerns the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the National Credit Act (the Act). More specifically, the question raised is whether s 90(2)(n) and s124 of the Act render the common-law right of set-off inapplicable in respect of credit agreements that are subject to the Act
Central to the dispute is the proper interpretation of sections 66 and 68 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). At the heart of the dispute is the ambit of these sections and the interplay between them and some of the other sections in the PFMA.
Gildenhuys Malatji Attorney (GMI), participated in the University of Pretoria’s Annual Law Career Day on 06 March 2019.
In a landmark case handed down by the Constitutional Court on Friday 29 June 2018 in the matter of Moosa and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others, Section 2C (1) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 (“the Wills Act”), was confirmed to be unconstitutional.
Some of the sections of the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Act, 2017 (“the FICAA”), which amend the requirements that an accountable institution (“AI”) must comply with in regard to the combating of money laundering and terrorist financing, came into effect on 2 October 2017. The sections that came into effect as such are those that deal with –
To read more about the matter, click on the link below-
Time heals all wounds – the law of Prescription in medical negligence
The purpose of the Prescription Act 68, of 1969 (“the Act”) is to bring about certainty and finality to disputes. The purpose of the Act is also to penalise creditors who do not take reasonable steps prescribed by the Act. Section 11(d) of the Act provides that a debt shall prescribe within 3 years from the date that the debt arose.
In April 2016, Gildenhuys Malatji’s Commercial Llitigation and Public Law Department went on trial in the Pretoria High Court representing the defendant in an action based on the condictio indebiti. The facts are, in short, that during 2007 the plaintiff engaged with the defendant.