Judges Commons^™

Chief Justice Mogoeng V Africa4palestine And Others [2021] Jsc/819/20; Jsc/825/20; And Jsc/ 826/20, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

This is a judgment against the first judge among his peers: the Chief Justice. Handed down by the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) of South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC), this judgment involves the remarks made in 2020 by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at a webinar hosted by a pro-Israel, conservative, Zionist newspaper. During that webinar, Mogoeng criticized the South African government’s official policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following Mogoeng’s faux pas and a loud public outcry, three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lodged complaints with the JCC against Mogoeng for his Israel comments.

This appeal judgment largely confirms the JCC’s earlier complaint …

Chief Justice Mumba Malila And The Challenges Ahead: An Editorial, O'Brien Kaaba, Kafumu Kalyalya

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited And Gregory Chifire Selected Judgment No. 47 Of 2018, Elliot Mfune

SAIPAR Case Review

The case of Savenda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited and Gregory Chifire is significant in that it raises the question whether Zambian judges have virtually unbridled power to move on their own motion to punish for contempt of court any person who criticises their judgements. In addition, the case reinforces the traditional struggles associated with distinguishing civil from criminal contempt, the consequences of which are entirely based on the distinction. The case is also important as it exposes inadequate sentencing guidelines in Zambian contempt laws, the effect of which has led to excessive and unwarranted sentences. A …

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited & Gregory Chifire (Alleged Contemnor) (Appeal No. 37/2017) [2018] Zmsc 11, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

Adjudicators have a social responsibility. When the Judiciary/judges carry out their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice it is critical to bear in mind that judges carry a level of responsibility for the impact that their decisions have on society. For this reason, judges ought to be held responsible for every judgment they render either good or bad. Contempt is an exceedingly powerful instrument in the hands of the courts to tame the conduct and behaviour of lawyers and lay people who come into contact with judicial authority. Like any other power, the exercise of contempt power has to be checked. …

Attorney General V Mutuna And Others (Appeal No. 088/2012) [2013] Zmsc 38, Muna B. Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.