Traditional "juju oath" and human trafficking in Nigeria: A human rights perspective

Norah Hashim Msuya

doi:10.17159/2225-7160/2019/v52a9

Abstract

Traditional "juju oath" and human trafficking in Nigeria: A human rights perspective

Highlights

The issue of foreclosures has for a while been of immense public interest (see e.g. Brits ‘The “reinstatement” of credit agreements: Remarks in response to the 2014 amendment of section 129(3)-(4) of the National Credit Act” 2015 Dejure 5; Sham “Executed in execution: discussion and suggestions regarding the immovable property foreclosure process in South Africa” Available at https://researchspace. ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10413/15030/Sham_Nikhil_2017. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y))
To put that assertion into perspective, it is reported that South Africa has historically been characterised as having one of the most uncompromising, aggressive and highest number of executions against homes in the world (Shaw “Too quick to execute – how does SA’s new rules on sale in execution compare internationally?” 2016 De Rebus)
The Local Division of the High Court in Johannesburg railed that it “has had to adjudicate the substantial rise in foreclosure applications. These applications have at times exceeded hundreds per week’ (Absa Bank Limited v Lekuku (32700/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 244 (14 October 2014) at Para 9)

Summary

Introduction

The issue of foreclosures has for a while been of immense public interest (see e.g. Brits ‘The “reinstatement” of credit agreements: Remarks in response to the 2014 amendment of section 129(3)-(4) of the National Credit Act” 2015 Dejure 5; Sham “Executed in execution: discussion and suggestions regarding the immovable property foreclosure process in South Africa” Available at https://researchspace. ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10413/15030/Sham_Nikhil_2017. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)). On 2 May 2018, the Judge President issued a directive in terms of section 14(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act through which he ordered a full Bench of the High Court to deliberate on the issue of home repossession judgments and to prescribe procedures that have to be complied with in cases where execution of judgment is sought. In terms of section 14(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, a full bench of the High Court was assigned to make a ruling on the procedures that banks have to follow when foreclosing mortgages on primary residences as well to pronounce on the correctness of the practice of the courts of granting applications for money judgments against judgment debtors (defaulting homeowners) while postponing the associated applications for sale in execution. It was further stated that the mortgagor and applicant for execution have an obligation to set relevant facts with regard to Rule 46A of the Uniform Rules of Court to enable the court to properly exercise its discretion appropriately

Discussion

Conclusion