The visit of President Jacob Zuma to Britain at least reminds us of the malignantly supercilious, arrogantly self-righteous and hypocritically superior attitudes of certain sectors of our former colonial masters. The Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror reflect these unbecoming attributes, having referred to Zuma as a sex-obsessed bigot, a buffoon, a former goatherd, who hade paid "a sort of a tribal deposit on a future bride". These carefully chosen insults are chosen by skilled language technicians who know how to use words with the same accuracy and effect as an mfezi spits venom. Zuma responded by saying that the insults reflected the dark side of a colonial mentality, and I agree with him.

It might be mentioned that many of South Africa’s present-day leaders are documented as having gained great inspiration from nature in taking cattle to and from grazing in their pre-school years. The learned intimate and profoundly individuating lessons from the eland, reedbuck, duiker, puffadders, cobras, francolin, stone chats jackal buzzards, guinea fowl and widow birds as they wandered through the veld as four-year-old cattle herders.

Zuma has indeed invited criticism for his extra-martial activities, and like, Tiger Woods he has apologised. The real issue is whether his private life has affected his moral authority and his ability to govern. It has. He has suffered a serious diminution in power. He is bleeding. But that is no justification for the sneering mockery, mostly with racial and demeaning undertones, the pus that has popped out of the English boil.

English colonial rule in both Nigeria and South Africa is full of instances in which the issue of polygamy caused deep and powerful divisions among the (colonial) authorities. The general policy was to recognise customary law and tradition in courts, as long as the custom of tradition did not offend unassailable Christian-British values. Of course this was defined in different ways, some drawing the line at the primacy of marriage being between one man and one woman. In the result polygamy became a battle-ground between the moderates and conservatives, the right and the left. This was especially important in succession cases, in which the ‘deceased’ might have produced children by Christian marriage and then produced more children in a succession of customary unions. Was it just to recognise only the rights of the children born by the Christian union? The moderates said ‘no’, and the hardliners said ‘yes’.

The issue crops up frequently in Nigerian case law.

Many of the (Cape, Transkeian and Natal) colonial magistrates who decided issues of property, boundaries, rights to cattle contract and succession did so with a profound respect for the rights and dignity of those who appeared before them. In turn these men came to be regarded them as fathers of the people and afforded the respect of chiefs.

The conservatives in the British media who lampoon Zuma as being primitive and barbaric for paying lobola and having many wives reflect centuries-old prejudice, not confined to the British but clearly illustrated in their colonial escapade in South Africa. It was not all bad, but the stench of hypocrisy still hangs in the air.

Assisted suicide/mercy killings have been in making headlines recently. These articles all discuss British instances as a few British public figures have been talking out about the issue, most notably Sir Terry Pratchett, an Alzheimer's sufferer. 

For me there seems to be nothing as cruel as not being able to recognise those you love and who love you, and losing all sense of dignity as you'll no longer be able to take care of yourself. So why should we tell those who choose to do things on their own terms that they can't? Why tell people that they can't help their loved ones deal with their illness' the way they see fit?

I can't clearly remember the stance our legislation has on this matter, but I do remember a crim 1 lecture where we discussed a case dealing with this matter. The defendant's sentence was completed when court was dismissed. What do you think about this matter?

When a lease for a fixed period expires, the tenant is required to move out.

However, a new lease comes into being when the tenant continues to occupy the dwelling, either with the landlord’s clear and direct (express) consent or where the landlord not object to accepting the rentals while the tenant remains in occupation (tacit acceptance).

Both parties, in this instance, have entered into a periodic lease on the same terms and conditions of the expired lease.

I am a bit perturbed by the system in place for the sale of tickets during the 2010 world cup. Whilst there are claims that the system in place will ensure that all South Africans have a fair chance at purchasing tickets I must beg to differ.

Who is responsible for damages caused by a third party to the property occupied by a tenant? Does a tenant or the owner have a claim against each other when a leased property or the personal belongings in it are damaged due to an armed robbery or burglary? 

Is the owner-landlord obliged to provide security such as an alarm system, burglar guards or security fence for the tenant? 

The landlord / landlady is not obliged to provide security to the leased property unless expressly undertakes to do so.  If a third party interferes with or disturbs the tenant’s peaceful use and enjoyment, the tenant cannot hold the landlord / landlady responsible.

If the action is criminal, the landlord is not obliged to prevent this, for example, a burglary (housebreaking) or trespassing.

In terms of our common law, a third party causing damage to the leased premises (e.g. through break-in) is liable and either the tenant or the landlord, who has suffered damage, will have a claim against the third party (burglar).

The tenant cannot hold the landlord responsible for damages caused to her property and the landlord has no claim against the tenant for the damaged to the leased premises.

Our common law considers an oral lease as important as a written lease for urban tenancies, Consensus or mutual agreement or the meeting of the minds is crucial when contracting.  In respect of a lease, parties must agree on the following; these are essential for a lease to come into existence and to be binding. 

1. the rental to be paid in respect of the dwelling let
2. which dwelling is to be occupied and
3. the period of the lease.

Sometimes, a party may decide to have the oral agreement recorded for convenience.  This is helpful when a dispute may arise.  In this instance, failure to record the terms and conditions of the oral lease does not render the agreement invalid.  This is different from the situation where the parties have orally agreed that there will be no lease contract unless the terms and conditions are in writing.  Writing is then the basis of an agreement, without which there is no lease contract. 

In respect of the tenant moving out of the dwelling before the lease period is over, the lease is deemed to have ended when the landlord / landlady realises that the tenant is no longer in occupation.  The landlord / landlady can also take legal action against the tenant for breaking the lease, i.e. moving out before the lease period ended or without a proper notice (a calendar month’s notice in the case of a month-to-month periodic lease).

If the landlord is in breach because the tenant does not have full use and enjoyment of the leased dwelling and failed to sort out the problem, the tenant can cancel for breach.

The tenant need to inform the landlord / landlady in writing that the lease is cancelled for breach and he / she would be vacating immediately and reserve his / her rights to claim the security deposit and damages. 

Consult an attorney or lodge a complaint with the provincial Rental Housing Tribunal or start proceedings through the Small Claims court.

The perfect Valentine's Day story: If you're separated from or in the process of divorcing your spouse, steer clear of Facebook. According to a recent survey of U.S. divorce attorneys, Facebook is the "unrivaled leader" for online evidence of matrimonial naughtiness.

The survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) shows that 81 percent of the Academy's members in the past five years have seen an increase in the number of divorce cases using social networking evidence.

Among the most popular social nets, Facebook has the dubious honor of being the leader for online divorce dirt, with 66 percent of survey respondents citing it as the primary source.

MySpace was second with 14 percent, Twitter third at 5 percent. Other online sources totalled 14 percent, according to an AAML release.

You're Being Watched!

Many social networkers forget that their online behaviour is easy enough to track.

"As everyone continues to share more and more aspects of their lives on social networking sites, they leave themselves open to much greater examinations of both their public and private lives in these sensitive situations," said Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the AAML, in a statement.

"Going through a divorce always results in heightened levels of personal scrutiny," Moses added. An estranged spouse will likely be one of the first people to spot online activities that indicate, say, an extramarital affair.

The AAML survey lends credence to earlier reports that spotlight Facebook as a hotbed of marital unrest. One report released in December says the site is cited in one of every five divorce petitions.

There's even a site devoted to the phenomenon: Facebook Cheating.