Abstract: Private international law is a globally established field of law however, its pre-eminence in Africa is insignificant and this has been as a result of its relevance, which according to many scholars is arguable. It follows logically therefore, that it is underdeveloped in Africa, and as this article posits, specifically in South Africa. This article advocates for the development of South African private international law by endorsing South Africa as a viable neutral jurisdiction venue for cross-border commercial disputes, in future. According to this article, this is to be achieved by the recognition of neutral jurisdiction clauses in South African courts. This can only be done by developing an effective and just system of cross-border/trans-national litigation. The proposed sound cross-border jurisdictional rules will supplement the newly established transnational arbitration regime. In order to achieve this, this research reflects an integrated comparative approach by establishing comparative perspectives mainly from the UK, USA, Brazil, Kosovo and South Africa.1 Based on its constitutional values of inalienable human rights and access to courts (justice), South Africa stands to gain immensely from incoming commercial arbitration and commercial litigation as forms of dispute resolution. This will establish the country as the preferred venue for arbitration and litigation on the African continent and beyond.
Abstract: In 1995, the National Assembly of Seychelles passed the Employment Act. However, the 1995 Act did not establish the Employment Tribunal. It is against this background that on 8 September 2008, the Employment (Amendment) Bill, was published in the Official Gazette. The bill was debated and passed in the National Assembly on 30 September 2008. It was assented to by the President a few days thereafter, that is, on 8 October 2008 and published in the official gazette on 13 October 2008 and it became the Employment Amendment Act (No. 21 of 2008). Immediately thereafter, the Employment Tribunal started its work. Since the coming into force of the Employment (Amendment) Act, the Tribunal, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have developed rich jurisprudence on the application and interpretation of the Employment (Amendment) Act. However, in this jurisprudence, none of these institutions rely on the drafting history of the Employment (Amendment) Act although case law shows that there are instances in which Seychellois courts have referred to Hansard in interpreting legislation for the purpose of determining "legislative intent." In this article, the author relies on the drafting history of the Employment (Amendment) Act and in particular the Employment (Amendment) Bill (2008) and the verbatim debates of the National Assembly (Hansard) to argue that the manner in which the Tribunal, the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal have interpreted or applied the sections of the Employment (Amendment) Act dealing with the following issues is debatable: registering a grievance before the competent officer; registering a grievance before the Tribunal; and penalties by the Tribunal (especially compensatory awards).
Open Access journal
[672 journals]
