SM Dlamini attorneys

Directions

SM Dlamini attorneys Your Comprehensive Legal Partner: SM DLAMINI ATTORNEYS
​From the courtroom to the boardroom, we provide strategic legal counsel across critical sectors:

09/07/2026

In DANIEL DLAMINI V REX [76/2026] SZHC the learned judge BS Dlamini said; "The two categories of drunk driving as distinctively identified by the legislature can never be treated as the same". In this case the appellate had been charged for drunken driving under section 91(1) of the Road Traffic Act 6/2007, but went the crown went on to define the charge under section 91(5).
The charge reads
" Accused is charged with the offense of contravening section 91(1) as read with section 122 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 6/2007. In that upon or (about the 15th February 2025, and at or near Fairview/ St Paul's road in the Manzini District, the said accused being a driver of motor vehicle....MP did wrongfully and unlawfully drive the said motor vehicle on the said public road while under the influence of liquor or drugs...."
PARTICULARS OF THE OFFENCE
*Accused had a strong smell of liquor
*Accused was staggering
*Accused reversed on a public road
The court said " The first part of the charge makes reference to a contravention of section 91(1) read with section 122(2).The problem starts when defining and explaining the elements of the charge in the charge sheet itself."
In its wisdom the court set aside the conviction and sentence of E5000 or 2 years imprisonment under section 91(1) of the Road Traffic Act 6/2007.
The court therefore found the Accused guilty of having contravened section 91(5) of the Road Traffic Act 6/2007 and imposed a fine of E800 or 6 months imprisonment.
Significantly the High Court didn't reduce the penalty for drunken driving but it put things into proper context in as as far as section 91(1) as read with section 122(2) and section 91(5) of the Act. The two sections/ subsections must not be conflated

26/06/2026

Dear Lord, it’s me again…🙏🙇‍♀️⚖️⚖️⚖️

04/06/2026

REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTERDICT
The Court will only grant the applicant an interdict, when it has been established that the applicant possesses (1)a clear right. Such right must exist in law either at common or statute law. The applicant has a duty to prove the existence of the right in fact, substatiating it with evidence. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, who must demonstrate the existence of the right on a balance of probabilities.
(2) There must be actual or reasonable apprehension of injury. The applicant must present evidence of wrongful conduct by the respondent. Such wrongful conduct or injury must be continuing or imminent.
(3) There must be no alternative remedy avaliable to applicant. If alternative forms of redress exist that would adequately address the situation, the application for an interdict may be refused by the court.

01/06/2026

The validity of previous conviction of an adult shall not apply for purposes of education and employment.
As per the Sixth Schedule of the ammended ACT 2018, the validity of previous conviction is as follows;
(a) One month to twelve months valid for one year
(b) Two years, valid for three years
(c) Three years, valid for four years
(d) Four years, valid for five years
(e) Five years, valid for six years
(f) Six years, valid for seven years
(g) Seven years, valid for eight years
(h) Eight years, valid for nine years
(I) Nine years and above, valid for ten years

27/05/2026

VALIDITY OF RECORD OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION CP&E (AMENDMENT) ACT,2018
287 (1) A record of a previous conviction of an adult shall be valid for the period of the length of the sentence imposed by the courts as outlined in the sixth schedule

06/05/2026

DOCTRINE OF ACQUIESCENCE
This doctrine in law means that if an individual knows about another's wrongful act or infringement, but remains silent, such person may lose the right to claim a remedy. The failure to take action is considered as consent or acceptance of the situation. The elements of this Doctrine are as follows;
*the person must be aware of the fact or claim against them.
*the person must not raise or take action within a reasonable time.
*the delay causes some disadvantage or harm to the other party
*the court infers from the conduct that the person accepted the situation.

27/04/2026

Default judgment is entered against a party who has either failed or neglected to file papers to defend a claim filed by the plaintiff. Rule 31 (3)(a ) Whenever a defendant is in default of delivery of notice of intention to defend or of a plea, the plaintiff may set the action down as provided in sub-rule (5) for default judgment and the court may, whether the claim is for debt or liquidated demand, without hearing of evidence, oral or documentary, and in the case of any other claim, after hearing such evidence as the court may direct, whether oral or documentary, grant judgment against the defendant or make such order as to it seems fit.

26/03/2026

A transfer of property usually begins with the sale of property. Therefore parties to the agreement or agent authorized in writing to sign on behalf of his/her principal must sign the agreement at the end thereof and must initial each page. The parties should initial any canceled or amended clauses. Further, the essential terms of the sale must be contained in the written contract, namely a description of the parties, the property and purchase price. If any one of these material terms are absent, the agreement of sale will not be enforceable.

DOCTRINE OF ELECTION This Doctrine is rooted in the law of contract when an innocent party is faced with a breach of con...
17/03/2026

DOCTRINE OF ELECTION
This Doctrine is rooted in the law of contract when an innocent party is faced with a breach of contract by another party, in such a situation, the innocent party has a right to make an election, whether to reject the breach and hold the defaulting party to the contract or to accept the breach, cancel the contract and claim damages. In Segal v Mazzur 1920 CPD 634 at 644 His Lordship Watermeyer AJ held that the aggrieved party has a choice of two courses of action. He can either choose to take advantage of the event or he can elect not to do so. He is entitled to a reasonable time in which to make up his mind,but when once he had made his election, he is bound by that election and cannot later change his mind.

Address

Matsapha Industrial Site River Edge Building Next To UD TRUCKS
Matsapha

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when SM Dlamini attorneys posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category