• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

SUSARA ELIZABETH MAGDALENA JOOS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2025

Membagikan "SUSARA ELIZABETH MAGDALENA JOOS"

Copied!
5
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

V f r

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CASE NO: 524/97

In the matter between:

SUSARA ELIZABETH MAGDALENA JOOSTE Plaintiff

and

SCORE SUPERMARKET TRADING {PTY) LIMITED Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S REPLICATION

Filed of Record on this ^ & , day ofd 1997)

The Plaintiff replicates to Defendant's Special Plea and Plea Over as follows:

1. Ad Paragraph 1 thereof:

The allegations herein contained are admitted.

2. Ad Paragraph/

(2)

2. Ad Paragraph 2 thereof:

2.1 Plaintiff pleads that the provisions of Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act No. 130 of 1993 are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution'), and more particularly as follows:

i The said provisions offend the provisions of Section 9 of the Constitution as the said provisions violate the Plaintiffs right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law as contemplated in Section 9(1) of the Constitution, and the said provisions unfairly discriminate against the Plaintiff as contemplated in the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Constitution.

the said provisions offend the provisions of Section 34 of the Constitution as the said provisions violate the Plaintiffs right to have his justifiable dispute with the Defendant settled by a Court of law; and

iii The said provisions offend the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Constitution, as the said provisions offend the Plaintiffs right to fair labour practices.

2.2 In the premises, the Plaintiff pleads that the said provisions of Seaion 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act are invalid, and accordingly denies that the* Plaintiff's claim as against the Defendant is unenforceable.

2.3 Plaintiff pleads that Defendant's Special Plea be dismissed with costs and that this court declare the said provision to be unconstitutional and refer the matter to the Constitutional Court in terms of section 172 of the Constitution.

(3)

2. Ad Paragraph 2 thereof:

2.1 Plaintiff pleads that the provisions of Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act No. 130 of 1993 are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No.

200 of 1993, (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), and more particularly as follows:

(i) The said provisions offend the provisions of Section 8 of the Constitution as the said provisions violate the Plaintiff's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law as contemplated in Section 8(1) of the c\ Constitution, and the said provisions unfairly discriminate against the Plaintiff as contemplated

in the provisions of Section 8(2) of the '/ ) Constitution;

(ii) The said provisions offend the provisions of Section 22 of the Constitution, as the said n/^' provisions violate the Plaintiff's right to have his justifiable dispute with the Defendant settled by a Court of law; and

The said provisions offend the provisions of

Section 27{1) of the Constitution, as the said :>>'J

provisions offend/

(4)

A .

. 4

provisions offend the Plaintiff's right to fair labour practices.

2.2 In the premises, the Plaintiff pleads that the said provisions of Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act are invalid, and accordingly denies that the Plaintiff's claim as against the Defendant is unenforceable.

2.3 Wherefore Plaintiff pleads that Defendant's Special Plea be dismissed with costs alternatively that the above Honourable Court refer the constitutionality of Section 35 of Act 130 of 1993 to the Constitutional Court for decision staying the proceedings pending such decision.

3. Plaintiff joins issue with Defendant in respect of the other allegations contained in the Plea.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff persists in her claim.

of

Plaintiff's Attorneys 118A High Street GRAHAMSTOWN

(Ref :/

(5)

(Ref : MR DE LA HARPE) TO: The Registrar of the above

Honourable Court.

AND TO: MESSRS. NEVILLE BORMAN & BOTHA Defendant's Attorneys

Millbarn Centre Off High Street GRAHAMSTOWN (Ref : MR PHILIPSON)

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

The States Parties shall cooperate between themselves and with the International Atomic Energy Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency") in accordance with

The validity of the electronic General Meeting of Shareholders hereinafter referred to as GMS according to Article 77 Paragraph 1 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 40 of

gauge railway hereinafter referred to as " the existing railway" and follows the existing railway bearing north for about 16 miles thence west of north to 38 miles thence nOlth· east

2 The amount to be withheld and the person responsible to withhold Subsection 35A1 reads as follows: “35A1 Any person hereinafter referred to as ‘the purchaser’ who must pay any

In the Insecticides Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the “said rules”, in rule 6, in sub-rule 3, for the words “by a demand draft drawn on the State Bank of India, Faridabad, in

Amendment of section 8, Act VII of 1975.—In the President`s Remuneration and Privileges Act, 1975 VII of 1975, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, in section 8,— a in the

The definition of credit is found in the provisions of article 1 number 11, Republic of Indonesia Law number 7 of 1992 on banking as amended by law number 10 of 1998 hereinafter

Provisions of Article 31 have been amended, therefore read as follows: Article 31 1 The alteration of the plan of function and utilization for multi-story housing as referred to in