Welcome to Anagrammer Crossword Genius! Keep reading below to see if coet is an answer to any crossword puzzle or word game (Scrabble, Words With Friends etc). Scroll down to see all the info we have compiled on coet.
coet
Searching in Crosswords ...
The answer COET has 0 possible clue(s) in existing crosswords.
Searching in Word Games ...
The word COET is NOT valid in any word game. (Sorry, you cannot play COET in Scrabble, Words With Friends etc)
There are 4 letters in COET ( C3E1O1T1 )
To search all scrabble anagrams of COET, to go: COET?
Rearrange the letters in COET and see some winning combinations
Scrabble results that can be created with an extra letter added to COET
4 letters out of COET
Searching in Dictionaries ...
Definitions of coet in various dictionaries:
COET - Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case ...
Word Research / Anagrams and more ...
Keep reading for additional results and analysis below.
| Coet might refer to |
|---|
|
Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case in South African law, with an especial bearing on civil procedure and constitutional law. It concerned the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act. It was heard, March 6, 1995, in the Constitutional Court by Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann J, Didcott J, Kentridge AJ, Kriegler J, Langa J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J and Sachs J. They delivered judgment on September 22. The applicant's attorneys were the Legal Resources Centres of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. Attorneys for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee application were the State Attorneys of Cape Town and Johannesburg, and Du Plessis & Eksteen for the Association of Law Societies. IMS Navsa SC (with him L. Mpati) appeared for the applicants in both matters, D. Potgieter for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee matter, and JC du Plessis for the Association of Law Societies (as amicus curiae). * Sections 65A to 65M of the Magistrates' Courts Act provided for the imprisonment of judgment debtors in certain circumstances, and were found by the court to be inconsistent with the right to personal freedom provided for in section 11(1) in Chapter 3 of the Interim Constitution. Such provisions were also not capable of being justified as reasonable in terms of the limitation provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution. It was further impossible, the court found, to excise only those provisions which failed to distinguish between debtors who could not pay and those who could but would not. It was possible, however, to sever from the rest those provisions which made up the option of imprisonment, leaving the balance of the debt-collecting system usefully in force. The court declined to exercise its powers under section 98(5) of the Constitution to keep the provisions in issue alive until Parliament had rectified them, as the debt-collecting system was not dependent upon the imprisonment sanction for its viability, and such provisions were clearly inconsistent with section 11(1) and so manifestly indefensible under section 33(1) that there was no warrant for their retention, even temporarily. * The court also held that, in declarating invalid the provisions of a statute inconsistent with the fundamental rights in chapter 3 of the Constitution, and in severing the invalid provisions from the remainder of the statute, the court should take account of the coming into force of the new Constitution and pay due regard to the values which it requires the court to promote. The court, held Sachs J, should posit a notional, contemporary Parliament dealing with the text in issue when the choice about severance falls to be made. * The case is often cited now for its provision of the test for severability:* Although severability in the context of constitutional law may often require ... |