Latest news with #SCA
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
JSC to recommend Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo for Deputy Chief Justice position
The Judicial Service Commission has decided to recommend the Gauteng Judge President for the second-highest position in the judiciary — after his 2022 bid for Chief Justice was nearly torpedoed in what seemed to be a coordinated campaign to derail his candidacy. Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo has been given the nod by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for the position of Deputy Chief Justice (DCJ). 'The JSC has decided to advise the President that Judge President Mlambo of the Gauteng Division is suitable for appointment as Deputy Chief Justice, and in accordance with that decision, a report will be submitted by the JSC to the President, including a report on the other two candidates,' said JSC commissioner advocate Sesi Baloyi on Thursday, 2 July. The position of DCJ has been vacant since September 2024, when Chief Justice Mandisa Maya assumed her role at the apex of the judiciary. This week, three candidates went head to head in front of the JSC. In addition to Mlambo, President Cyril Ramaphosa nominated the Judge President of the Free State Division, Cagney Musi, and the Judge President of the Northern Cape, Pule Tlaletsi, for the DJC role. A fourth nominee, Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) Justice Mahube Molemela, withdrew. Both Tlaletsi and Musi stumbled at points in their interviews; Tlaletsi, notably, for saying that sexual harassment in the judiciary was an issue that he had not personally 'identified as a problem', and Musi over his contentious decision to allocate the R24.9-million Nulane case to acting Judge Nompumelelo Gusha. Last month, the SCA reversed Gusha's decision to grant discharges and acquittals to all the accused in the Nulane matter, in a ruling that found the acting judge had made multiple legal errors. On Thursday, Musi, who was one of the SCA's panel of judges at the appeal, defended his decision to appoint Gusha, adding, however, that he agreed with the SCA decision. 'The judge [Gusha] got it wrong. That is why we have courts of appeal. I agree totally with the SCA,' he said. 'Threat to the rule of law' Mlambo, interviewed first in a marathon session on Wednesday, said it would be 'an honour' for him to serve as South Africa's next DCJ. He is South Africa's most senior Judge President, Mbekezeli Benjamin, a research and advocacy officer at Judges Matter, reported in Daily Maverick. For the past 15 years he has served as Judge President of two of South Africa's busiest courts — the Labour Court and then the Gauteng Division of the High Court. At 66, if appointed, Mlambo will serve as DCJ for four years until his mandatory retirement in 2029. 'I think my leadership style, Chief Justice, is one of inclusivity, team-leading and enabling. Were I to be recommended as Deputy Chief Justice, I would continue in that leadership philosophy,' said Mlambo. Asked by Maya whether he would have an issue working under her — a woman who is younger than him — Mlambo said: 'I will not have a problem with that. In fact, I don't think it's an issue at all. 'I'm not in the judiciary for positions. I'm in the judiciary to ensure that the judiciary fulfils its constitutional mandate in whatever capacity I find myself in. And I would gladly support you, and work under you, and abide by your dictates and directions, Chief Justice.' Mlambo vied for the position of Chief Justice in 2022, against Maya and former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, to succeed then Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. But Mlambo and Zondo's interviews were nearly derailed by attempted political hit-jobs from a JSC cabal led by advocate Dali Mpofu and EFF leader Julius Malema, reported Daily Maverick's Rebecca Davis. Ramaphosa later chose to ignore the JSC's recommendation of Maya — as was his legal right — and appointed Zondo as Chief Justice in March 2022. He retired on 31 August 2024 and was replaced by Maya. Following the public interview process, the JSC has deliberated and resolved to advise the President that Judge President D Mlambo is suitable for appointment as the Deputy Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa. #JSCinterviews #ocj_rsa #JudiciaryRSA — RSAJudiciary (@OCJ_RSA) July 3, 2025 In his interview, Mlambo took a particularly firm stance on the issue of the unacceptability of attacks on the judiciary. 'Powerful people who criticise the courts, who impute corruption and other negative implications on the imputations of the judiciary are a threat to [the] rule of law,' said Mlambo. He said the DCJ should take up the mantle of supporting the Chief Justice in engaging with legal professionals and civil society and making them aware that 'this type of wanton, unfounded criticism of the judiciary is a problem'. Mlambo, at first, did not reference political parties or politicians specifically, but asked by Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi about the issue, he admitted he shied away from mentioning 'political players in the criticism of the judiciary'. He said it was the constitutional prerogative of the executive and the legislature to defend the judiciary 'when it comes under unnecessary and unwarranted attack'. Modernisation of the judiciary Maya revealed that Mlambo had played a key role in the judiciary's motivation for its independence. Honouring the 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court last month, Ramaphosa announced plans for the judiciary to become an independent institution like Parliament — a call judges have been making for years. He vowed that the government would provide budgetary and operational support. Mlambo said he would support Maya in her vision of judicial independence. 'Chief Justice, you've hit the ground running as the current Chief Justice. Your vision is very clear: the independence of the judiciary. And, hardly a year in office, the executive has yielded. We've been fighting this battle for the last 14-15 years, but now it's going to become reality that we will also be institutionally independent,' he said. Mlambo is renowned for his administrative wizardry and innovative approach to leadership. He spearheaded the roll-out of the court online system in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, and as chair of the judiciary's IT committee he has overseen the further roll-out of this system to seven of the nine provinces, reported Daily Maverick. He said he had been 'fortunate' to have been 'central to the modernisation of the judiciary' in South Africa. The DCJ, according to Mlambo, 'must possess strong intellectual leadership skills to support and advance the constitutional jurisprudence development' of the Constitutional Court. 'The Deputy Chief Justice, as supporting the Chief Justice, must have a very well-developed operational, as well as a systems and administrative sense, to ensure that the operations of the Constitutional Court, and of the general judiciary, goes according to plan and achieves its objectives,' he said. Mlambo said he believed the role of the DCJ was to enable efficiency at the Constitutional Court. He said it was 'not good' that some Constitutional Court judgments take several months to be delivered. DM
Zawya
9 hours ago
- Business
- Zawya
Saudi construction sector touches $587bln in 2024
Saudi Arabia's construction sector grew to nearly 2.2 trillion Saudi riyals ($587 billion) in value in 2024 as the Kingdom pushed ahead with its Vision 2030 economic transformation scheme. The drive has sharply boosted the number of construction companies in the world's dominant oil exporter to nearly 300,000, said Abdul Majeed Al-Rashoodi, secretary general of the Saudi Contractors' Authority (SCA). The number of mega contracting firms with 'grade A' ranking also increased from 800 at the start of 2024 to nearly 1,600 at the end of year, which reflects growing interest in the Saudi construction market, he told the Saudi daily Aliqtisadia. 'As for the value of the Kingdom's construction sector, it peaked at nearly SAR2.2 trillion last year…the construction sector in Saudi Arabia is now one of the fastest growing sectors in the world,' Rashoodi said. (Writing by Nadim Kawach; Editing by Anoop Menon) ( Subscribe to our Projects' PULSE newsletter that brings you trustworthy news, updates and insights on project activities, developments, and partnerships across sectors in the Middle East and Africa.
Time of India
a day ago
- Health
- Time of India
Housing Board office gets device to deal with sudden cardiac arrest
Lucknow: An Automated External Defibrillator (AED) that is handy in saving the lives of people in case of sudden cardiac arrest was installed at the UP Housing Development Board's headquarter recently under the guidance of experts from the department of cardiology, SGPGI. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "This AED or shock machine is an integral part of the technique to save victims of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) apart from learning CPR or cardiopulmonary resuscitation," said Prof Aditya Kapoor, head, department of cardiology, SGPGI. He added that sudden cardiac arrest can happen to anyone, anytime, and anywhere, and in India, nearly 6-7 lakh people die suddenly at home or in public places due to the condition. "Without immediate help (within the first three minutes), the victim's chances of survival are nearly zero. Although SCA victims can be saved by bystanders, such victims do not survive due to minimal public awareness and knowledge on how to handle such emergencies," he said. Prof Kapoor also informed that every one-minute delay in initiating life-saving measures in the form of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by bystanders decreases the chances of survival by 10%. Housing commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Balkar Singh said, "CPR is a simple life-saving skill and can be easily learned. Efforts by organisations like SGPGI and ICICI who understand the importance of dealing with the problem are appreciable."
TimesLIVE
a day ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
NPA petitions SCA on discharge of Ace Magashule's ex-PA Moroadi Cholota
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal the judgment delivered in the Free State High Court regarding Moroadi Cholota's special plea on the lack of the court's jurisdiction in the asbestos case. Last month Cholota successfully challenged her extradition from the US to testify in the corruption trial where her former boss, former Free State premier Ace Magashule, is one of the accused. The NPA initially filed for Cholota, who was studying in the US, to be extradited in 2022 after linking her to the corruption case. After her extradition, Cholota was included in the case as an accused. However, judge Phillip Loubser said Cholota's extradition was unlawful and the court was precluded from trying the offences she was charged with. She was then discharged. 'The petition to the SCA follows after judge Loubser dismissed the NPA's request for the judge to reserve questions of law in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act,' NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said. He said the NPA believed the judge erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, there were reasonable prospects of success to appeal the judgment and there were compelling reasons for the SCA to hear the state's appeal. 'We are also exploring the possibility of approaching the Constitutional Court, challenging the same judgment, given the possible far-reaching implications on many other extradition matters.' TimesLIVE reported the charges Cholota was facing related to a R255m asbestos contract awarded about six years ago by the Free State department of human settlements to the Blackhead Consulting joint venture to audit, assess and remove asbestos from homes in some of the Free State's poorest areas.
Zawya
a day ago
- Business
- Zawya
On-demand guarantees: What the SCA's landmark decision means for guarantors, contractors?
In construction projects, on-demand guarantees issued in favour of employers play a vital role in encouraging performance and managing risk in the event of non-performance by contractors. Calling up on-demand guarantees On 20 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023 and 150/24) [2025], delivered a judgment which underscores the importance of separating the operation of on-demand guarantees from underlying construction contracts. Briefly, Set Square Developments (the employer) had appointed Vahva Construction (the contractor) to execute certain construction and remedial works in a large low income housing project. The contractor was appointed to do works on three phases of the project, resulting in the conclusion of a suite of contracts (the construction agreement) between the employer and contractor, for each phase. The contractor was required to provide three on-demand guarantees for each phase as security for the fulfilment of its performance obligations under the construction agreements. It did so through Power Guarantees (the guarantor). Terms of the guarantees The relevant terms of the guarantee facility between the guarantor and the employer were as follows: For on-demand guarantees one and two: 'Subject to the Guarantor's maximum liability referred to in 1, the Guarantor undertakes to pay the Employer [Set Square] the guaranteed sum or the full outstanding balance upon receipt of a first written demand from the Employer to the Guarantor at the Guarantor's physical address calling up this Performance Guarantee, such demand stating: 5.1 the contract has been terminated due to the Contractor's default and this Performance Guarantee is called up in terms of 5.' For on-demand guarantee three: 'Subject to the Guarantor's maximum liability referred to in clauses 1.0 or 2.0, the Guarantor undertakes to pay the Employer the Guaranteed Sum or the full outstanding balance upon receipt of a first written demand notice from the Employer to the Guarantor at the Guarantor's physical address calling up this Guarantee for construction stating that: 5.1 9 The agreement has been terminated due to the contractor's default and that the security for construction is called up in terms of 5.0. The demand notice shall enclose a copy of the notice of termination.' Between 4 December 2020 and 26 March 2021, the employer terminated the construction agreement in respect of all three phases. The terminations led to the employer calling up each guarantee. In respect of each phase, the employer made written demand of the guaranteed amount in accordance with the terms of the relevant on-demand guarantee facility. Despite demand for the guaranteed payment to be made on each phase, the guarantor refused to make payment. The refusal necessitated the institution of legal proceedings by the employer to enforce its entitlement to payment of the guaranteed total across the three guarantees. The guarantor and contractor defended the matter. The High Court In respect of the first on-demand guarantee, the High Court found that the employer was to blame for the contractor's failure to fulfill its obligations under the construction agreement in that it failed to grant it access to the site. As such, the High Court was of the view that the employer was not entitled to payment under the relevant on-demand guarantee. In respect of the second on-demand guarantee, the High Court granted an order for payment in favour of the employer after finding that it had duly complied with the terms of the relevant guarantee facility. In respect of the third on-demand guarantee, the High Court held that the employer was not entitled to payment on the basis that its termination of the agreement had been preceded by the contractor's termination, notwithstanding the employer's termination being predicated on a repudiation resulting from the contractor's termination. Read the judgment The Supreme Court of Appeal The employer pursued an appeal against a portion of the order of the High Court relating to on-demand guarantees one and three. Conversely, the guarantor sought to appeal against the portion of the High Court order directing it to pay the employer in respect of the second on-demand guarantee. Based on the grounds raised by the parties, the SCA had to mainly consider whether: the terms of the three on-demand guarantees prevented an interrogation into the employer's claim that it had terminated the underlying agreements due to a breach by the contractor; whether the underlying construction agreements between the employer and the contractor existed, and if so, whether they were inextricably linked to the guarantees; and whether the guarantor's defence of fraud is sustainable on the facts. In a nutshell relating to the fraud defence – the guarantor argued that the employer had made fraudulent claim on the basis that the employer: had not completed an acceptance form in respect of one of the construction agreements; had signed different construction agreements from those covered by two of the guarantees. Through established principles, the SCA affirmed that the autonomous nature of on-demand guarantees had the consequential effect of precluding a guarantor from interrogating a contractual dispute between the employer and contractor, devoid terms allowing it to do so. This means the guarantor was not entitled to consider the legitimacy or validity of the termination of the respective construction agreements. All the guarantor had to do was to make payment to the employer, to the extent that the demand made in respect of each phase was compliant with the terms of the guarantee. By extension, the overarching principles prevented the guarantor from disputing the existence of agreements which had been implemented by the employer and contractor in the project. That said, the SCA found that there was a correlation between the agreements and the issued guarantees. In conclusion, the SCA determined that the employer had complied with the terms of all three guarantees and was therefore entitled to payment under each. The guarantor's fraud defence was unsuccessful as it did not demonstrate any intent to mislead it or misrepresent any facts to claim payment under the guarantees. Takeaway This case is a reminder to parties involved in construction projects, and in particular employers and guarantors, to comprehensively understand the consequences of the structure and terms of the guarantee facilities to which they subject themselves. The case makes is clear that on-demand guarantees mainly require guarantors to make payment to employers or beneficiaries when a guarantee is called up, provided the terms of the guarantee facility have been complied with. The obligation to make payment, typically, does not extend to the vetting of the claim insofar as there may be an existing or potential contractual dispute between the employer and the contractor in respect of an underlying agreement, unless the guarantee facility carefully permits for such. Generally, an on-demand guarantee facility has a life of its own, and liability under it is not affected by the underlying contractual relationship between the employer and contractor. Although not a focal point of this article, the case does intimate that a claim proved to be predicated on fraud or material representation could halt the enforcement of on-demand guarantees. As such, a guarantor is not expected to rubber stamp a claim and may challenge it where there are reasonable grounds for fraud, provided the guarantor is able to prove that the employer knowingly presented false material representations to induce payment.
