The identification of an accused as the perpetrator of the crime is paramount in obtaining a conviction[1] In South Africa a numerical approach is followed to establish identity beyond reasonable doubt. Courts have accepted different points of similarities[2] until 1953 in the case of R v Nzama and Another.[3] In this case the fingerprint expert testified about eleven points of similarity, but indicated that seven points of similarity are sufficient proof to establish identity.

The court accepted seven points of similarity without any reference. It became therefore a common occurrence in South African court rooms for expert witnesses to testify that the general acceptance is an existence of seven points of similarity between the latent fingerprint and that of the accused to be sufficient for the purpose of positive identification.[4 [5] It became apparent that over the past decades, fingerprint experts in South Africa still cannot provide a reliable answer as to why it can be proclaimed that seven points of similarity are sufficient proof. Judges attached such a high value to fingerprint examiners’ testimony[6] that fingerprint experts’ "collective experience"[7] became regarded as a science which went unchallenged.

Comments

​Exclusive use can be formally established by the developer, as well as more informally by the body corporate. In terms of section 27 of the Sectional titles Act the developer can establish an exclusive use area when opening the sectional register. Section 27 (1A) (amendment Act of 1997) gives the developer a right to reserve an exclusive use area even if he did not include it in the application for the opening of a sectional register.

If the body corporate was already established, a developer cannot rely on section 27 (A 1) of the Act. The provisions of Section 27 of the Sectional titles Act make provision for an obligation that exclusive use areas must be transferred to sectional owners (sec 27 (1)(a),(3) and (4)).
The owner of the exclusive use area is also legally bound to pay for maintenance and repairs of that exclusive use area (sec 37 (1)(b)).

Comments

Since 2006, the NCA regulates the credit industry and has profoundly altered the consumer credit law.

It was implemented for the purpose to –
 1. Protect consumers from credit providers (over indebtedness)
2. Regulate credit bureaux and to ensure correct information is disclosed
3. Regulate the way in which debt is recovered by creditors.

In general, emphasis is placed on natural persons, in other words members of the general public (consumers). The NCA introduced new remedies and options for debtors. As a result of the implementation of the NCA legal and other collection costs are dramatically limited and some standard provisions in credit agreements are now unlawful to the extent where same could render the entire credit agreement unenforceable. For example, the sale of attached assets for less than their market value will result in the debtor being able to claim damages.

Comments