-
Bonang is a Director at Malatji & Co. Attorneys in Sandton. She has 16 years of practise experience. Her practise spans across vast areas of law, including advice and litigation stemming from Public Law issues.
-
Peter specialises in all aspects of Lower and Superior Court litigation and has additional expertise in labour, credit agreements, administrative and constitutional law. Peter completed his articles at Durban-based firms Du Toit Havemann & Lloyd and Easton-Berry Inc specialising in sectional title disputes, banking law and litigation.
-
Navigating the South African business landscape isn't easy. It's not only highly regulated, new legislation is constantly being written that changes those regulations.
-
An expert reference for the legal profession, and a user-friendly guide for employers and social media users
-
Marisa is the Director at Xpatweb and her areas of specialty include South African work permits, especially for employers with large groups of expatriates which requires short term employment service visas, unique dispensations or special waivers of work permit conditions.
-
Dawid Jacobs is a prominent Identity Management Specialist in South Africa. He received intensive training in the South African Police Service (SAPS) as a Fingerprint Expert and Crime Scene Forensic Investigator (CSI). During his SAPS career, he identified, matched and verified hundreds of thousands of fingerprints.
-
Ivana Surian has an LLB from the University of KwaZulu-Natal and is a legal content editor for LexisNexis South Africa. She is currently graduating with her LLM in Maritime Law at Howard College (Durban) with a specialisation in unmanned and autonomous vessel regulation.
-
In CS and Another v Swanepoel and Others [2022] 2 All SA 810 (WCC), damages for sexual assault by teacher, state has a legal duty to protect and not to harm the children who are entrusted to its care on a daily basis, in public schools.
-
In Ndlovu v Minister of Police and a related matter [2022] JOL 53977 (MM), the Minister of Police failed to prove that the shooting of the first plaintiff was justifiable, while the second plaintiff failed to prove the requisite elements for a delictual claim for nervous or emotional shock.