Jointly with the Chief Justice, the department implements programmes aimed at supporting these courts. One such intervention is backlog courts.
The aim is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. Full jurisdiction was conferred to courts in rural areas and former black townships that exercise limited jurisdiction and depend entirely on the main courts in urban areas to deliver essential justice services. Through the construction of courts, the right of everyone to have any dispute resolved by the application of the law in a fair public hearing before a court is guaranteed. Small claims courts were established to adjudicate small civil claims.
They were created to eliminate the time-consuming adversary procedures before and during the trial of these claims. The limit of cases involving civil claims in these courts is R15 The vast majority of the new courts and places of sitting are in rural areas and former black group areas. The goal of having a small claims court in every magisterial district is in sight.
Gauteng and Mpumalanga have already achieved this. The number of people enjoying the benefits of access to justice through small claims courts has increased steadily. Establishing these courts depends partly on the number of dedicated women and men who volunteer their services as commissioners or as advisory board members.
The labour courts have the same status as high courts. The labour courts adjudicate matters relating to labour disputes between employers and employees. Labour courts are mainly guided by the Labour Relations Act, Act 66 of , which deals with matters such as unfair labour practices, e.
Labour courts can order an employer or employee or union to stop committing an unfair labour practice. Labour courts are empowered to give jobs back to employees who have lost their jobs unfairly.
Labour appeal courts hear appeals against decisions in labour courts and are the highest courts for labour appeals. The right to equality is protected by law in the Equality Act of and the Employment Equity Act, Act 55 of The two Acts work in synergy. The Equality Act of aims to:. They are designed to deal with customary issues in terms of customary law. An authorised headman or his deputy may decide cases using indigenous law and custom for example, disputes over ownership of cattle or lobolo , brought before him by parties within his area of jurisdiction.
The judicial functions of traditional leaders are regulated in terms of the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Act, Act 28 of The Land Claims Court has the same status as the high courts. The Land Claims Court can hold hearings in any part of the country if it believes this will make it more accessible and it can conduct its proceedings in an informal manner if this is appropriate, although its main office is in Randburg.
South Africa has established community courts on a pilot basis to provide speedy resolution of certain types of community offences. These courts focus on restorative justice processes, such as diverting young offenders into suitable programmes. The business community and other civil-society formations have contributed significantly to the establishment and sustainability of these courts.
Lessons from the pilot sites will assist in finalising the policy and legislative framework that will institutionalise community courts as a permanent feature of the judicial system.
In Gulu, legal aid was virtually non-existent. In South Africa, means-tested legal aid was a vital but overburdened service. Legal aid attorneys held private consultations, but on simple criminal cases where clients were pleading guilty, consultations were often muttered from the dock, as the attorneys took instructions and details for mitigation. In both Gulu and Ntuzuma, limited legal representation meant that court users regularly turned to court orderlies, clerks, interpreters, and other administrative staff to literally and figuratively find their way around the court.
Officials might take great pride in relaying the system but could also provide hurried responses or use such interactions as a chance to seek bribes from those seeking assistance. While not underestimating the damage done when institutions are captured by personal interests, we argue that policy-bound procedures are not necessarily seen as useful, fair, or affirmative by all court users.
This article has shown that it is possible to bring lower state courts into focus without analytically pre-supposing that they are central to the ordering of everyday life.
Nevertheless, lower state courts are part of the legal and justice landscape across Africa. Where they exist, they operate. People are turning to the courts in large numbers and governments, donors, and civil society actors are seeking to expand their reach and authority. Their long case lists should be seen not just as a point of critique but a call to inquiry. These are institutions and sociolegal spaces that are clearly worthy of study.
Our analysis has suggested how the academic blinkers on lower state courts may have emerged and, drawing on new evidence from South Africa and Uganda, what we gain by studying these courts. Our empirical findings present a clear theoretical challenge to the causal predictions of procedural justice—legitimacy models that undergird access to justice programming at the international and national level.
We find that people can be simultaneously deeply critical of their government and its agents, whilst also conferring state institutions with a degree of legitimacy. Moreover, there is no fixed relationship between institutional usage, institutional utility, and institutional legitimacy. Theoretically, our findings contribute to research on public authority and empirical statehood by providing original insights into how people relate to the state through the lower state courts.
Our flexible model of institutional engagement embraces normative, strategic, and pragmatic dynamics: it considers how people think the court should act, how they need the courts to act, and how they expect the courts to act in any given instance. These courts are actively drawn into the lives of disputes. In this process, people seek to negotiate the terms of their engagement with these institutions and the meanings they inscribe upon them. This is hardly particular to Africa.
In a period of leveraged national and international support for access to justice, our findings should stimulate debate and further research on the actually existing dynamics of lower state courts and prospects for reform. This puzzle has become more apparent recently in literature on state-society relations in African studies. This term excludes other courts in the lower tiers of the state justice system that are, for example, tied to traditional authorities.
For an interesting collection of essays addressing these points, see: Brian Tamanaha, Caroline Sage and Michael Woolcock, Legal pluralism and development: Scholars and practitioners in dialogue Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, In Uganda, we examined four civil cases and six criminal cases; in South Africa nine criminal cases and four civil cases. In this article all interviewees are referred to through pseudonyms and details of their cases may have been redacted at their request.
Repeated on Google Scholar in Alou M. Kyando and C. Lake, Strong NGOs and weak states. Atukwasa, B. Basheka and P. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, , pp. Justice Tankebe et al. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents Abstract. Explaining the presence of academic blinkers. Removing our blinkers: Interpreting citizen engagement with lower state courts. Access to justice in its socio-political context.
Beyond procedural justice. Normative engagements: How people think the courts should act. Strategic engagements: How people need the courts to act. Evolving engagements: How people expect the court to function. The District Courts have jurisdiction over minor criminal matters and civil matters up to R The Regional Courts have jurisdiction over family matters like divorces, maintenance, custody matters and civil matters between R Small Claims Court Can only hear claims instituted by natural persons against natural or juristic persons; not the State.
Its jurisdiction limit is currently R 15 Exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters in terms of the Labour Relations Act and any other labour law. Final court of appeal in respect of judgments and orders made by the Labour Court. Both the Regional and High Court can deal with divorce matters. It reviews or considers an appeal against any decision of the Competition Tribunal the Tribunal adjudicates restrictive practices, abuses, or dominant positions and mergers. Electoral Court Status of the High Court.
They can sentence a person to a maximum of 3 years in prison or a maximum fine of R They cannot deal with certain matters, such as:. Serious criminal matters are heard in the High Court. Small Claims Courts have jurisdiction to hear any civil matter involving less than R 12 unless both the person suing and the person being sued agree to limit the claim to less R12 But some cases cannot be taken to the Small Claims Court even if they are for R12 or less.
Examples of these claims are:. There is no Magistrate or Judge in the Small Claims Court, but the presiding officer is a Commissioner who is usually a practicing advocate or an attorney who acts as a commissioner free of charge.
The Commissioner listens to both sides and asks all the questions since lawyers cannot be used in the Small Claims Court, but citizens can obtain advice from a paralegal advisor or a lawyer to prepare for their cases. No appeals may be filed against the judgment or order of the Small Claims Courts.
The court proceedings may however be referred to the High Court for review on three grounds, namely: absence of jurisdiction by the court; interest in the cause, bias, malice or corruption on the part of the commissioner and gross irregularity with regard to the proceedings. Community Courts should not be confused with Traditional Courts that are found mostly in rural areas and which assist in resolving less serious disputes.
These courts practice restorative justice and many diversion and alternative sentencing options are applied in Community Courts. The accused is assessed as soon as possible usually within 48 hours of arrest to decide on suitability for diversion from the criminal justice system.
Legal Aid attorneys are available on request. Equality Courts have been set up to help people who believe that they have suffered unfair discrimination, hate speech or harassment.
These courts make it is easy for persons with such cases to bring their matters to court and that the matters are finalised quickly.
0コメント