ZUMA THE CONTORTIONIST

Zuma the contortionist

[thank you Wikipedia for this image {link}]

But Zuma has survived every scandal and allegation against him because he is able to wriggle out of responsibility for his actions. He will attempt to do so again on the Nkandla matter because of the strategy he employed throughout the saga." [My emphasis]. Sorry guys, there was no space for the shower head. His signal is that he is on his way out of the box.

The Con Court

I think it would be disrespectful to congratulate the Con Court for its judgment. Why do I say that? Because that is what a court of law should do: deliver judgment without fear. In other words, the Con Court complied with its duties and calling as the protector of law and order. If only Zuma and the National Assembly had that integrity!! Wishful thinking.

The same argument would hold water in respect of the Public Protector and the present incumbent Adv Thuli Madonsela. She complied with her high calling to be impartial, objective and in this day and age to be fearless and steadfast. Not so Zuma and cohorts.

MSN news has this to say about Zuma and the Con Court judgment: you can read the full article here:

"But Zuma will not simply surrender. He is still holding an ace card and could drag the ANC down with him. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.

In light of the binding ruling that both the president and the National Assembly acted unlawfully and in contravention of their constitutional obligations, can they retain their legitimacy? Can they be trusted to perform their functions for the remainder of their term? While the Constitutional Court affirmed the remedial action determined by the Public Protector for the sins of the Nkandla upgrades, there is no remedy prescribed for Zuma and the National Assembly being in breach of the Constitution and the law.

Zuma has caused so much reputational damage to the ANC, has failed in his leadership responsibilities and has brought the organisation into disrepute on so many issues that the Constitutional Court judgement should not even be needed as a basis to remove him from office.

But Zuma has survived every scandal and allegation against him because he is able to wriggle out of responsibility for his actions. He will attempt to do so again on the Nkandla matter because of the strategy he employed throughout the saga." [My emphasis].

I refer you to my previous blog write-up about two judges

Read More

ZUMA YOU MUST GO NOW - BE A MAN OF HONOUR AND RESIGN

ZUMA dealt a blow by the

Constitutional Court!!!

Constitutional Court in session

Zuma must go now - he failed to uphold the Constitution. The National Assembly protected this man and failed therefor to uphold the Constitution.

What a disgrace is the man - not the Presidency. What a disgrace is the National Assembly in all its shameful glory.

You can read the full judgment of the CC by clicking here.

The Con Court delivered a unanimous decision and said inter alia:
 

"Consistent with this constitutional injunction, an order will thus be made that the President’s failure to comply with the remedial action taken against him by the Public Protector is inconsistent with his obligations to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic; to comply with the remedial action taken by the Public Protector; and the duty to assist and protect the office of the Public Protector to ensure its independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness.

Similarly, the failure by the National Assembly to hold the President accountable by ensuring that he complies with the remedial action taken against him, is inconsistent with its obligations to scrutinise and oversee executive action and to maintain oversight of the exercise of executive powers by the President.  And in particular, to give urgent attention to or intervene by facilitating his compliance with the remedial action."

It is very clear that the President is a failure as well as the National Assembly. Vavi called for Zuma to go and he called that the National Assembly should also go. You can read it here.

Madonsela is, according to the Court, the Biblical David that slayed the Nkandla giant - you can read it here.

Does any body really think that this man will go?

You can also see a youtube video when this matter was argued in the Con Court by clicking here.

Read More

POWER OF ATTORNEY with an example

FROM MY LEGAL LIBRARY

POWER OF ATTORNEY

What is a power of attorney? [pa] In short it is when you give someone else the authority to do something on your behalf.

EXAMPLE ONE: You can give someone the authority to do one specific thing for instance: to buy on your behalf a specific motor vehicle for a specific price and not more. Once your agent bought that specific motor vehicle at that specific price, the power of attorney lapses or comes to an automatic end.

EXAMPLE TWO: You give someone the power of attorney to attend to your affairs for exactly 12 months – and at the anniversary it comes to an end.

EXAMPLE THREE: You give someone the power of attorney to act on your behalf for an unlimited period of time.

In all three examples you may terminate it without giving any reasons to the other.

HOW DO YOU EXECUTE A POWER OF ATTORNEY? It is a legal document that you write out and sign it. The other person does not have to accept it. If the other does not accept it, he/she can do so explicitly or tacitly [that is he/she is simply not acting in terms of the power of attorney].

The court will always go behind the power of attorney to discover the true nature of the transaction.

I give you herewith an example of a simple general power of attorney. You are however strongly advised to seek professional help for your specific needs.

 [THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.

I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU TO SEEK PROFESSIONAL

ASSISTANCE FOR YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS]

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN WHOM IT MAY CONCERN THAT

 I, the undersigned

[FILL IN FULL NAMES & SURNAME]

IDENTITY NUMBER: [FILL IN THE NUMBER]

ADRESS [FILL IN THE EXACT PHYSICAL ADDRESS]

Do hereby nominate, constitute and appoint [FILL IN FULL NAMES & SURNAME] [IDENTITY NUMBER [FILL IN THE NUMBER]] of ADRESS [FILL IN THE EXACT PHYSICAL ADDRESS] with power of substitution to be my lawful agent in my name, place and stead, to represent me and to exercise all my powers aforesaid as fully and effectually as I might or could do if personally present and acting in person without in any way detracting from the powers aforesaid and I hereby authorise my agent:

 1.       To collect monies, give and grant receipts, quittances and discharges, and to compound any claims in the said estate.

2.       To prosecute, defend, abandon, compromise or take on appeal any legal proceedings brought by or against the estate.
3.       To open and operate a banking account in my name at [Fill name of the Bank] Bank on my behalf and to sign or endorse any negotiable instruments for and on behalf of the estate.
4.       To invest and deal with any investments belonging to the estate and to consent to the cancellation or release of any securities.
5.       To sell movable and immovable property, shares, stocks and securities belonging to the estate and for such price and upon such terms as my agent in his sole discretion deem fit and to give transfer thereof to any purchaser or purchasers.
6.       To sign any estate accounts and all documents that may be necessary or required in connection with or arising out of the administration of the estate.
7.       To transfer from the estate movable to any person or persons entitled thereto by reason of purchase, bequest, legacy or otherwise howsoever and to sign all or any documents required to give effect to such transfer.

And generally for effecting the purposes aforesaid, to do or cause to be done whatsoever shall be requisite, as fully and effectually, for all intents and purposes, as I might or could do if personally present and acting herein, hereby ratifying, allowing and confirming and promising and agreeing to ratify, allow and confirm all and whatsoever my agent shall lawfully do or cause to be done, by virtue of these presents.

DATED AT                 ON THIS     DAY OF 2016

_________________________________________             ________

[FILL IN YOUR FULL NAMES & SURNAME]             WITNESS

IDENTITY NUMBER: [FILL IN THE NUMBER]

Read More

STATE CAPTURE: SOUTH AFRICA

This a concept that is floating around in our beautiful country as if it is an everyday point of discussion. This concept is brandied about as if every Tom, Dick and Harry knows the full import thereof.  

Wikipedia gives it this definition:

“State capture is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests significantly influence a state's decision-making processes to their own advantage through unobvious channels, that may not be illegal. The influence may be through a range of state institutions, including the legislature, executive, ministries and the judiciary. It is thus similar to regulatory capture but differs through the wider variety of bodies through which it may be exercised and because, unlike regulatory capture, the influence is never overt.”

[Source: click here]

On 10 March 2016 the DAILY MAVERICK asked the question under this heading: “State capture: Did the Guptas offer Treasury's top job to Deputy Minister Jonas?” [Source: click here ]

It is if the Daily Maverick pre-empted the happenings, not so?

In light of Wikipedia’s quotation, it is necessary to take notice of what happened in my country during the previous weeks or so; especially when you consider wat the Deputy Minister of Finance Mr Mcebisi Jonas said on 16 March 2016. He states categorically that the Gupta-family offered him the portfolio in the Cabinet as Minister of Finance. [Source: for the full text of his statement click here]

I wonder what Mr David Douglas Van Rooyen would disclose one day? [Do you remember him? He was the man who held on to his Ministerial appointment for exactly five days [Source: click here]

And of course the Gupta-family denies it and challenged him to proof it [Source: click here]

The very same day a former senior ANC politician Me Vytjie Mentor disclosed in THE SOUTH AFRICAN.COM that the Gupta’s offered her a job in the Cabinet as well [Source: click here for the full text of her “bomb” This time the honourable President Zuma tried another trick. He pleaded amnesia – he cannot remember ever meeting her.

Vytjie’s response was hugely interesting: “I chaired the ANC national parliamentary caucus when President Zuma was a Deputy President. He sat next to me and spoke through me and with me in Caucus each Thursday when Parliament was in session.” This was only one incident that she mentions. She mentions others as well.

What does our President Jacob Zuma do? Resign? Of course not! What does the ANC high command do? Recall him like they recalled President Thabo Mbeki? Of course not. That is why the image below reminds me of Zuma: he laughs all the way to Nkandla and the Bank.

Zuma laughing!

I suggest to you that in any other country where there are inter alia ethical standards, integrity, quality leadership, morality and decency the President would have resigned without any one calling for his resignation. Not our beloved President – he stays put and laughs.

Read More

Even the busiest entrepreneur can manage to read like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

1. Buy books in advance.

When trying to form a new habit, it pays to remove any obstacle that could get in the way of you keeping to your new routine, no matter how trivial. So those looking to start taking their vitamins might move the bottle to eye level, or new runners might invest in better sneakers. For would-be readers, this principle dictates you don't wait to finish one book to buy another. You should always have books lying around and easy to grab.
"If you have more books in your house, you'll have more choices, and this will help you read more," insists Foroux. "Here's why: Most of the books you read are not planned in advance. You don't sit down in January and say: 'The first week of June I'll read this book.' You finish a book, look you at your inventory, and decide what to read next... Having an inventory of books keeps up the momentum. You also never have an excuse not to read."

2. Always be reading.

It's as simple as ABC -- always be reading. Nope, you're not miraculously going to find unfilled hours to devour that novel. Instead, you need to make a conscious choice to use the odds and ends of your days to reach your reading target.
"Find a way to read around your schedule and your life situation," says Foroux, who suggests you could read on the train, while waiting at the doctor's office, while breastfeeding your baby (I can personally testify you can get through quite a lot of books this way), or during breaks at work. It might sound like simple advice but Foroux's math is compelling. "Most people read 50 pages an hour. If you read 10 hours a week, you'll read 26,000 pages a year. Let's say the average book you read is 250 pages: In this scenario, you'll read 104 books in a year," he calculates.

3. Read what you like.

Want to read a lot? Then don't force yourself to read books you're not interested in at that particular moment. This isn't Literature 101, with a set syllabus. Anything you pick up and enjoy will offer you some value.
"Not all books are for everyone. A book might be a bestseller, but maybe you can't stand the writing. Or maybe it's not the right time to read a book," observes Foroux. "If you can't flip through the pages, put the book away and pick up something you are so excited about that you tear up the pages." Life is too short (and the supply of potential titles too plentiful) to make yourself read boring books.
Looking for ideas to stock those shelves (or e-reader)? Here are suggestions from author Tim Ferriss, startup CEOs, and TED speakers.
How many books did you read last year? How many will you get through this year?

SOURCE: click here

Read More

ZUMA IS A DISHOUNABLE MAN ACCORDING TO MAIMANE

Jacob Zuma in the real world.

I will write something later about this man called Jacob Zuma and who is the present incumbent of the Presidency of the Republic of South Africa.

These were very harsh words meted out to our Honourable President Jacob Zuma while he sat in Parliament by parliamentary leader of the DA on Tuesday 17 February 2015. Maimane respects the office of the president but he told Zuma in his face that he [Zuma] is not an honourable man. Can any one remember this happening in our Parliament ever? I would be pleased to hear about such an incident.

 It is shocking but worth every moment. I urge you to listen to this carefully constructed speech by a very brave man.

SOURCE: click here

Read More

A Story of an African Farm & Acquisitive Prescription

Deep in the heart of Mpumalanga Province there is an African farm with the beautiful name of Kaalbooi. This farm, Kaalbooi, is now inextricably linked to acquisitive prescription and it started with the first sub-divisional transfer during 1936 some 79 years ago.

How did it all come about?

Client asked me to draft his will which, according to him, should be very simple and straightforward: His two sons should inherit his house and Kaalbooi in equal shares. I informed him that the inheritance of his house in a residential area is fine, but not so with the farm. He is not allowed to sub-divide agricultural land and I gave him the reason – the Sub-Division of Agricultural Land Act prohibits such a sub-division but for certain provisions in the Act.

He looked puzzled as if there was something he could not understand. He turned the tables on me; to my surprise he stated coolly and calmly that he was already in possession of 50% shares in Kaalbooi. And to crown it all, he told me that since he took transfer of Kaalbooi, he never encountered anybody at all who claimed to be a co-owner – for an “… uninterrupted period of thirty years ...”? He told me what he, his late wife and boys did on the farm. All of a sudden these “simple and straightforward” instructions became complicated, hugely complicated.

I asked him: “How on earth can that happen?”

He got up, went to his shelf and pulled out a lever arch file and gave me the original title deed. It was in pristine condition.

It was true – he obtained 50% shares during 1981. He bought it from Widow Mrs B. Her 50% shares were subsequently transferred to him. The title deed was silent about the remainder of the shares.

I perused it [actually it felt as if I devoured the title deed] and looked for the most obvious endorsement in it, namely Ministerial consent. It was glaringly lacking. What to do now was my next problem? I took it to my office and started reading law.

I became satisfied that there were three guiding statutes that should be closely studied and these three statutes are the following [I studied it in this order]:

1. The Sub-Division of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 that commenced on 2 January 1971 [“the Sub-Division Act”].

2. The Prescription Act 68 of 1969 that commenced on 1 December 1970 [“the 1969 Prescription Act”] &

3. The Prescription Act 18 of 1943 that commenced on 19 April 1943 [“the 1943 Prescription Act”].

After the initial study of the above three statutes, it was time to get the background story and of course the evidentiary material from client. I visited client again at his house and asked him for proof of his allegations. He wasn’t fazed and presented me with the most authentic evidence an attorney could wish for – his oral instructions matched his photographic evidence & documentary evidence in every material respect.

CLIENT’S EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL

The personal circumstances of my client, his immediate family and friends are so endearing and humane – I think it is the stuff for storybooks but not for now. 

He told me in graphic detail how and what they did on the farm – “… openly and as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of 30 years …”

Client handed me faded and tattered photographs in well-thumbed photo-albums. Almost all of these photos have anecdotes with dates in either his handwriting or his late wife’s or their children’s. Besides the albums there were also stacks of photographs in its original envelopes complete with receipts of payment for the prints. That enabled me to put dates to the events. I could tie his stories to specific dates which in turn corroborated his version of events.

There were lever arch files brim-full of original correspondence between farm neighbours about the use or abuse of water rights; original receipts for buying diesoline and the hiring of earthmoving equipment to clear portions of Kaalbooi of noxious weeds; his submission to SARS to claim tax relief for clearing the farm of those weeds; copies of criminal charges he laid at the Police of a break in at the homestead that he, his late wife and their sons built.

He even kept the original “confession” from a State Department for its illegal quarrying on Kaalbooi for road making purposes.

We advertised in a newspaper in the Lowveld and later on in national newspapers and even in the Government Gazette calling on interested parties to come to the fore to present their case for co-ownership. There was not a single query.

THE TITLE DEEDS SINCE 1936

Client’s title deed was the starting point to trace all relevant previous transfers. I could then link the previous transfers to one another from 1981 to 1936. It was a major operation to obtain copies of these title deeds. Some were almost illegible to read.

Farm records in the old Transvaal were no longer kept in the Registrar of Deeds Offices in Pretoria. These records were transferred to the Registrar of Deeds, Mpumalanga in Nelspruit – this was in keeping with the creation of the 9 provinces since 1994. That is where I obtained the previous title deeds.

THE SUB-DIVISION ACT

This Act is very important vis-à-vis agricultural land and should be the first that you read when you are dealing with transfers of agricultural land. Certain actions in respect of agricultural land are either excluded [section 2] or prohibited [section 3].

Section 3 prohibits the subdivision of agricultural land subject to section 2. The first three subsections of section 3 are crucially important in this regard and it states:

            “3 Prohibition of certain actions regarding agricultural land

Subject to the provisions of section 2 –  

(a)  agricultural land shall not be subdivided.

(b)  no undivided share in agricultural land not already held by any person, shall vest in any person;

(c)  no part of any undivided share in agricultural land shall vest in any person, if such part is not already held by any person;

(d)  …

(e)  …

(f)   …

(g)  …”

Client’s initial instructions pertaining to his bequest of Kaalbooi to his two sons in equal shares were struck down by the prohibition contained in section 3 (a).

I had to solve the prohibitions set out in section 3 (b) & (c).

It is clear that “… (b) no undivided share in agricultural land not already held by any person, shall vest in any person;” Yet, client is the proud owner of 50% undivided shares in Kaalbooi. The problem was how on earth did that happen?

I kept reading and saw section 3 (c) applies because “… such part is … already held by …” my client since 1981.

Remember section 3 is subject to the provisions of section 2. Then I studied section 2 which refers to “Actions which are excluded from application of Act.” [sic]. This might give me the clue why 50% were transferred to my client. Look at section 2:

“2 Actions which are excluded from application of Act

The provisions of this Act shall not apply in respect of –

(a) …

(b) any subdivision of, or the passing of an undivided share in, any land in accordance with a testamentary disposition or intestate succession, if the testator died before the commencement of this Act;

(c) …

(d) …”  

[My cursive].

Widow Mrs B sold her 50% undivided shares in Kaalbooi to my client during July 1981. Client’s title deed led me to the earlier transfer wherein Widow Mrs B obtained her 50% undivided share. These shares were transferred to her out of her late husband’s estate. The hunt is on for all previous transfers. It became clear from Widow Mrs B’s title deed that she was married in community of property to her late husband who passed away 26^th day of June 1970. The Sub-Division Act commenced 2 January 1971 – shall I say that he made it in the nick of time? The transfer to Widow Mrs B was fine.

I was able to reconcile the various transfers with the Sub-Division Act; my client’s transfer was regular & lawful for the following reasons:

1.  Widow Mrs B’s husband passed away shortly prior to the Act commenced.
2. The transfer to his widow and subsequent to my client was regular & lawful.

3.  All the previous sub-divisional transfers were not affected by this Act at all.

THE NEXT QUERY: PRESCRIPTION IN RESPECT OF PERIODS FROM 1981 TO 2014

I don’t intend to restate what I have already set out in graphic detail above save to state there was enough evidence to convince a court of law on a balance of probabilities that he has possessed Kaalbooi “… openly and as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of thirty years…”

I submit that the relevant portion of section 1 of the 1969 Prescription Act is applicable and it reads as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and of Chapter IV, a person shall by prescription become the owner of a thing which he has possessed openly and as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of thirty years …”

THE NEXT QUERY: PRESCRIPTION IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1981

The relevant portion of section 1 of the 1969 Prescription Act reads as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and of Chapter IV, a person shall by prescription become the owner of a thing which he has possessed openly and as if he were the owner thereof for… a period which, together with any periods for which such thing was so possessed by his predecessors in title, constitutes an uninterrupted period of thirty years.” [My cursive].

Does this mean that, for prescription purposes, I should/could take the period prior to 1981 into account? Does it mean that the right title and interest in prescriptive periods prior to 1981 were transferred to my client? I submit these rights, if proven, were indeed transferred to client.

In light of the fact that the first sub-division took place during 1936, it became necessary to also have regard to the provisions of the 1943 Prescription Act.

Section 2 of the 1943 Prescription Act reads:

“(1) Acquisitive prescription is the acquisition of ownership by the possession of another person's movable or immovable property or the use of a servitude in respect of immovable property, continuously for thirty years nec vi, nec clam, nec precario.

(2) As soon as the period of thirty years has elapsed such possessor or user shall ipso jure become the owner of the property or the servitude as the case may be.”

On this point we became unstuck because nobody came forward to claim co-ownership of Kaalbooi. I submit it was unnecessary to seek other historical facts for the periods prior to 1981. We could not get facts pertaining to prescriptive periods prior to 1981 at all. I was satisfied that client’s case could be proved on a balance of probabilities and it was on that basis that we launched motion proceedings to claim transfer of the other 50% undivided shares in Kaalbooi.

The history of Kaalbooi and its people prior to 1981 are hidden in the mists of Mpumalanga and in a couple of graves on the farm.

Since 1981 Kaalbooi’s history became very clear – thanks to my client’s meticulous record keeping.

On 21 August 2014 the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division, Pretoria declared in case number 2703/2014 applicant [my client] as having acquired the remaining half share in Kaalbooi and the court granted related relief as well. 

Read More