翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Administrator (law) ・ Administrator (of ecclesiastical property) ・ Administrator of Affairs of the Soviet Union ・ Administrator of an estate ・ Administrator of Ascension ・ Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ・ Administrator of the Government ・ Administrator of the Northern Territory ・ Administrator of the Small Business Administration ・ Administrator of the Turks and Caicos ・ Administrator of Tokelau ・ Administrator of Tristan da Cunha ・ Administrator of Veterans Affairs ・ Administrator Superior of Wallis and Futuna ・ Administrator, Cape, v Ntshwaqela ・ Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane ・ Administrators of the Comédie-Française ・ Administrația Națională de Meteorologie ・ AdminiTrack ・ Adminius ・ Admir ・ Admir Adrović ・ Admir Adžem ・ Admir Aganović ・ Admir Bilibani ・ Admir Hasančić ・ Admir Haznadar ・ Admir Kecap ・ Admir Ljevaković ・ Admir Mehmedi Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane ： ウィキペディア英語版 Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane ''Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane''〔1991 (2) SA 192 (A).〕 is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney. The court found that an applicant may not seek to base a case on allegations contained in the respondent's answering affidavit where that case has not, in some way, been foreshadowed in the founding affidavit.〔199B.〕 == Facts == The first and second respondents (as applicants) sought an order in a Local Division against the appellants (as respondents) declaring that their purported dismissal from the employ of the Transvaal Provincial Administration had been unlawful. The respondents' foundational allegation—that they were afforded no hearing—formed no part of the grounds upon which they obtained relief in the court ''a quo''. That court, having regard to the averments made by the appellants (together with such facts as were common cause), held that, although the respondents had indeed been given a hearing, it had not been one which complied with the requirements of the ''audi'' rule. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.