South Africa.
Seriti said he wouldn't be surprised if the 5.5% increase was contested by magistrates, who objected to the 5%
recommendation last year. Magistrates have taken legal action against the commission and the president based on
last year's 5% increase.
'Magistrates were unhappy with our decision last year they feel they're entitled to a higher increase. The chances are
very high that they could challenge us again this year,' said Seriti.
The recommended 5.5% increase would potentially push the annual salaries of ordinary magistrates up to R708 000,
with senior magistrates touching nearly R779 000 and regional and chief magistrates earning R944 000 a year.
The other group of public officials that the commission is concerned about are local councilors [sic]. A 5.5% increase
would take them to an annual salary of R400 000.
Seriti said municipal councilors [sic] were sometime the target of derision. The homes of several councilors [sic] have
been torched during service delivery strikes 'yet we've discovered they have no insurance cover,' he said.
'The remuneration of local councilors [sic] needs to be looked at in its entirety.'
The basic salary increases for members of parliament may not sit well with ordinary South Africans, aware of the gulf
between rich and poor in South Africa and the perception by many people that their MPS are not delivering value for
money.
The commission doesn't deal with the perks which boost the pay packages of MPs in particular.
Questioned about whether the commission should be looking at all the perks before making recommendations on
basic salaries, Seriti said it was outside the legal framework he was operating in.
Page 200 of [2016] 3 All SA 193 (GJ)
'The Act is silent on who is to implement that.'
The commission chairperson said his team had been investigating the possibility of introducing performancebased
increases instead of an acrosstheboard increase.
'We're investigating whether to move away from a "one size fits all" policy,' he told Moneyweb.
Seriti said a project on performancebased remuneration had been stalled due to budget constraints, but not before
getting 'tentative views' from other countries, including the US and the UK.
The salaries of chief whips of the ANC and DA would nudge up to nearly R1.3m, with chairpersons of committees
earning around R1.1m a year.
The commission said the 5.5% suggested increase was in line with Gordhan's comments during his annual budget
speech calling for moderation in annual salary increases.
Questioned about when the salary increases could be approved by the President, Seriti quipped: 'Your guess is as
good as mine, although it's usually 2 to 3 months after our determination.'"
[19] Ms Cloete wrote Moneyweb 1 after she had attended and participated in a press conference in Parliament. At
the conference she took notes and asked questions of delegates. About the article, she says that it "is an
original work and required my independent effort, skill and expertise to write." Having written it, she emailed
it to Moneyweb's editor who made certain adjustments before it was published.
[20] Mr Puckrin submitted that this evidence is not sufficient to prove originality. He argued that it was incumbent
on Moneyweb to put up further evidence, such as Ms Cloete's notes of the press conference and an
explanation from her as to how she went about constructing the article.
[21] In Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd9 Schutz JA noted that ". . . the existence of prior
material tends also to limit the scope for originality and to require more exacting proof of its existence than is
the case with truly original works."
[22] The court a quo in Pyromet (Pty) Ltd v Bateman Project Holdings Ltd held that the evidence in that case was not
sufficient to prove originality. 10 For Goldstein J, the evidence of Mr Sidorski created more questions than
answers:
"The applicant alleges that it is the proprietor of the copyright in the drawings referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the
draft [order]. There are 240 of such drawings attached to the affidavit of Mr Eugenius Daniel Sidorski which affidavit is
itself an annexure to the founding affidavit. Sidorski states that as the applicant's supervising engineer he supervised
the making of each of the drawings. He identifies each of the draftspersons concerned and gives the dates on which
each of the drawings were made. He says that he 'personally witnessed each person making the drawings listed, at
the Applicant's premises in Johannesburg (where) each drawing was made under (his) supervision'."11
Page 201 of [2016] 3 All SA 193 (GJ)
"Sidorski's affidavit ends with paragraph 8 which reads: 'Each drawing was original in that it was the product of each
author's personal skill, knowledge and labour and was not copied from any other drawing'."12
". . . I find the statement in paragraph 8 very cryptic and bald. The drawings contain considerable detail. I find it
difficult to believe that each is the product of the personal skill, knowledge and labour of the author. I find it difficult to
believe too that none was copied from any other drawing. Certainly Sidorski fails to explain how each of the authors
was able to produce his or her drawing in vacuo without reference to any other drawing. In my view there must
overwhelmingly on the probabilities have been copying involved in the production of at least portions of the drawings.
The problem created for the applicant's case, insofar as it relies on copyright, is that my conclusion, that there must
have been some copying, makes it impossible for me to find which portions of the 240 drawings are the subject of
copyright and which are not. . . ."13