Contact

Pro Bono & Human Rights Practice | Practical Advocacy Workshop for Public Interest Law Litigators

Back to top

Pro Bono & Human Rights Practice | Practical Advocacy Workshop for Public Interest Law Litigators

During the week of 7-10 April, our Pro Bono & Human Rights practice (Pro Bono Practice) partnered with the University of Hertfordshire (Herts University), United Kingdom, Judge Stuart Wilson from the Johannesburg High Court, and Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) to deliver an intensive and highly engaging practical advocacy workshop for public interest and human rights lawyers.

23 Apr 2026 01:42 Minutes Video

The training was facilitated by Simone Start and Stuart Lindsay, both Barristers and Principal Lecturers at the Department of Law, Criminology and Professional Legal Education, Herts University, with the assistance of Anne Marie de Vos SC, Jacquie Cassette, Head of our Pro Bono Practice and lawyers from LHR.  The primary purpose of the training was to equip the participants with practical litigation skills, with emphasis on developing their oral advocacy skills.   

The participants included young attorneys from various public interest law organisations, including LHR, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), the Centre for Child Law, AccessChapter2, Probono.Org and Amnesty International, and pro bono practices in commercial law firms, as well as junior advocates.

We were privileged to be joined by Judge Seena Yacoob, Judge Elmien du Plessis, Judge Sandiswa Mfenyana and Judge Richard Moultrie, who together with Judge Stuart Wilson imparted invaluable insights and guidance to the participants from the perspective of a judge. /

The feedback received from participants was overwhelmingly positive and we look forward to rolling out further workshops going forward.

Watch the highlights video below.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2026 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.

You might also be interested in

26 Mar 2026

by Alex Kanyi, Denis Maina and Laureen Mukami

Permanent establishments risk in Kenya: The dependent agent dimension in the Travelport services case

When it comes to permanent establishments, substance trumps form. Businesses with cross-border operations cannot rely on the contractual labelling of functions alone, therefore, if a contract describes local functions as auxiliary, those functions must genuinely be auxiliary in practice. Where the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) examines the true nature of those functions and finds them to be core to the business, a permanent establishment (PE) determination will follow, giving rise to tax obligations. In the recent decision in Travelport Services (Kenya) Limited v Commissioner of Legal Services & Board Coordination the Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) outlined functions that give rise to a PE, particularly, a dependent agent PE. This alert discusses what the decision means for businesses with Kenyan operations.

Tax & Exchange Control

5 min read

19 Mar 2026

by Tayyibah Suliman, Sadia Rizvi and Izabella Gutlar-Balkovic

The risks of shadow AI in M&A transactions

Tayyibah Suliman, Director and Sector Head, together with Sadia Rizvi and Izabella Balkovic, Associates in the Technology & Communications sector, were recently featured in the DealMakers Annual Magazine, where they explored “The risks of shadow AI in M&A transactions”.

Technology & Communications

1 min read

30 Jan 2026

by Jacquie Cassette and Elgene Roos

Court grants order of substitution in long battle for refugee status

On 15 December 2025, the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, upheld a review application instituted by our Pro Bono and Human Rights Practice on behalf of a client, challenging the decision by the then Refugee Appeal Board (RAB) to reject our client’s application for refugee status.  

Pro Bono & Human Rights

8 min read

17 Jun 2025

by Joe Whittle, Kananelo Sikhakhane and Khutso Mongadi

Unconscionability as a defence to on-demand guarantees

On-demand performance guarantees are a staple in construction and engineering projects due to their commercial function of ‘as good as cash’ security, providing employers with prompt and reliable security if contractors fail to meet their obligations. Demand guarantees are designed to be autonomous instruments. The guarantor’s obligation to pay arises upon presentation of a demand that complies with the guarantee’s terms, regardless of disputes under the underlying contract (the independence principle). The independence principle is the main charm of demand guarantees, as the South African courts have consistently upheld the independence of these guarantees, with fraud by the beneficiary being the only recognised exception to payment.

Construction & Engineering

5 min read

9 Feb 2026

by Jean Ewang, Taryn York and Ra’ees Ebrahim

Labour Court confirms that seeking alternative employment does not constitute misconduct

In the recent decision of Lucchini South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1794/22) ZALCJHB 589 (19 December 2025), the Labour Court confirmed that an employee cannot be dismissed for seeking alternative employment, even if that employment is with a competitor.

Employment Law

3 min read

26 Mar 2026

by Fiona Leppan, Biron Madisa and Goitsemodimo Litheko

Jurisdiction boundaries redrawn: Constitutional Court clarifies limits of the Labour Court's jurisdiction over compensation claims arising from protected strikes

In the recent decision in South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union (SACCAWU) v Massmart Holdings Ltd and Others ZACC 11 , the Constitutional Court considered whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to consider a claim for just and equitable compensation for wrongful conduct under Section 68(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, as amended (LRA) which occurred during a protected strike.

Employment Law

5 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline