The Constitutionality of Prescription Periods in the South African Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Constitution protects the right to equality and access to courts. There it manifests unfairness in according public institutions special protection, which is not extended to private persons with claims against the state. This may imply an absence of equal protection and benefit of the law. Some prescription periods contained in statute create inequalities between people with civil claims against public institutions and those against other defendants. By not affording the plaintiff with condonation for failure to institute a claim within the prescribed period, claimants with genuine claims may not have the opportunity to institute their cases even where there is a just cause for not instituting such a claim on time. Since the Presciption Act does not provide for condonation after the lapse of the prescribed period for three years (the period prescribed for ordinary claims in terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969), this creates the problem with genuine claims, which for reasons beyond their control, would be deprived of redress. In conclusion those courts should be granted the power to condone, on good cause shown, the late institution of a claim, where the debt has prescribed in terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".