SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF JUSTICE (SJD1501)

ASSIGNMENT 6

STUDENT NO.: 67949541

Question 1.1

According to Anneliese Roos, the right to privacy in South Africa emanates from our
Roman-Dutch common law heritage where the right to privacy was derived from the
actio iniuriarum and first recognised in South African courts in the case of O’Keeffe v
Argus Printing and Publishing Company Limited 1954 (3) SA 244 (C) at 247H to
249E.

The right to privacy was later enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996 at Section 14. The proliferation of different social
media platforms has challenged both the common law and Constitutional law’s
protection of the right to privacy.
In H v W (2013) 2 All SA 218 (GSJ), the court held that in terms of the prescripts of
the Constitution at Sections 39 (2) and 173, the courts have a duty to develop
common law. The speed of technological and social changes in society demands
that the courts keep abreast with the pace of change by developing their skills to
adjudicate these matters.

Harms AJA in Janse van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger 1993 (4) SA 842 (A) at
850 held that “to determine whether a prima facie invasion of the right to privacy is
justified, it appears that in general the principles formulated in the defences of
justification in the law of defamation ought to apply’.

Question 1.2

The right to freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution under the Bill of
Rights at Section 16 of Chapter 2. Under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights at
Sections 14 and 16 respectively provides for the protection of the competing “right to
privacy” and the “right to freedom of expression”.
The courts are therefore entrusted with the challenge to balance these two
competing rights.
In Financial Mail (Pty) Limited v SAGE Holdings Limited 1993 (2) SA 451 (A) at
464C; Argus Printing & Publishing Company Limited and Others v Esselen’s Estate
1994 (2) SA 1 (A) at p25B-E; National Media Limited and Others v Bogoshi 1998 4
SA 1196 SCA at p1208G-J the test to determine whether defamation arising from
freedom of expression was justified, it was held that it was not sufficient that the
published words were in fact true, but it must also be published in the interest or
benefit of the public. These courts also made a clear distinction between what is
“interesting to the public” as opposed to ‘what it is in the public interest” to publish
the article.
In H v W (2013) 2 All SA 218 (GSJ), the court held that the courts do not pander to
prurience or nosiness, but rather to what is in the interest or benefit of the public.

Question 2

Transparency International defines public service delivery broadly as services

provided by governments to their citizens which encompasses the provision of
services such as healthcare, education, water and sanitation etc.
The right to services such as health care, food, water and social security are protected
by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights at Section 27 of Chapter 2.

There is no doubt that Corruption impacts on service delivery and affects us all.

Transparency International argues that corruption in service delivery undermines the
human right of equal access to public services and entrenches inequality that
violates the rights of the most marginalised segments of society.

According to Corruption Watch, because the poor are predominantly the

beneficiaries of public resources and service delivery, it is they who suffer the most
harmful effects of corruption. The poor and most vulnerable who are dependent on
the government for housing, healthcare, education, security and welfare, suffer the
most as corruption inhibits service delivery by delaying infrastructure development.
Corruption diminishes a nation’s wealth as money is redirected away from
allocations to income grants, eligibility for housing or pensions and weakens service
delivery to the poor.
Numerous studies have shown that corruption can interrupt investment, restrict
trade, reduce economic growth which leads to increasing levels of poverty and
income inequality.

REFERENCES

H v W (2013) 2 All SA 218 (GSJ)

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Roos, A. 2012. Privacy in the Facebook Era: A South African Legal Perspective
(2012) 129 SALJ 375.

https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/learn-about-corruption/what-is-corruption/we-are-
all-affected/ (accessed on: 19 April 2020).

https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/guide/topic-guide-on-corruption-in-service-
delivery/4471 (accessed on: 19 April 2020).

STUDENT’S STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGING AN UNDERSTANDING OF

PLAGIARISM AND THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF

This is to state that I have read all the documentation about plagiarism that I have
received. I also fully understand what plagiarism is.

I also accept that if I commit plagiarism, I will be severely penalized.

NAME: ALICIA LEONORE

SURNAME: FISHER

STUDENT NO.: 67949541

MODULE: SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF JUSTICE (SJD1501)

SIGNATURE: DATE: 19 APRIL 2020