LJU4801 ASSIGNEMNT 2 2026
DUE SEPTEMBER 2026
Question:
Carefully consider the following scenario and then answer the question
below:
A judge is presiding over an application for an order compelling performance. X (the
landlord) and Y (the tenant) agreed, in writing, that Y would rent an apartment from X for
R12 000 per month. The duties and responsibilities of both parties were delineated
Name and discuss ONLY the theories that best explain how the judge decided this case.
The scenario presented involves a judge who refuses to grant an order compelling a landlord to
fix a roof, based on the peculiar reasoning that rodents "enrich a space with life" and are
comparable to pets. This decision raises important questions about how judges decide cases
and what constrains judicial decision-making. The judge's reasoning demonstrates a departure
from traditional legal interpretation and can best be explained by specific theories of
adjudication.
The Postmodern/Critical Theory Approach
The judge's decision in this scenario is best explained by postmodern theories of adjudication,
specifically the critical theory that judges make decisions based on the "unbounded free play of
the judicial mind."¹ According to this view, there is nothing that constrains judges, and they
simply make up their own minds based on their personal preferences, culture, upbringing, and
prejudices.²
, In this case, the judge does not engage with the plain meaning of the contract or the established
legal principles regarding a landlord's obligations. Instead, the judge imposes a personal and
unconventional view that rodents add value to a property. This is precisely what postmodern
critical theorists describe, the judge is not constrained by the text of the contract, the intention of
the parties, or legal precedent. The judge's personal opinion about animals becomes the
deciding factor.
The judge's reasoning exemplifies what the study guide describes as the view that "rules either
do not exist or are only used as smokescreens for political decisions of judges."³ The judge pays
no attention to the contractual clause requiring the landlord to maintain the property in a
"condition reasonably suitable for the use for which the property is let." Instead, the judge
substitutes personal preference for legal analysis.
¹ LJU4801 Study Guide, 'Legal Philosophy' (University of South Africa 2017) 122.
² LJU4801 Study Guide 122.
³ LJU4801 Study Guide 122.
Also, this decision aligns with the idea that "anything goes" in judicial decision-making.⁴ The
judge's comparison of rodents to cats and dogs ignores fundamental legal and factual
distinctions rodents are generally considered pests that can cause health hazards and property
damage, unlike domesticated pets. The judge appears to be making a personal value judgment
rather than applying legal principles.
Contrast with Objectivist Theories
To fully understand why the postmodern critical theory best explains this decision, it is useful to
contrast it with objectivist theories that the judge clearly did not follow.
Textualism
DUE SEPTEMBER 2026
Question:
Carefully consider the following scenario and then answer the question
below:
A judge is presiding over an application for an order compelling performance. X (the
landlord) and Y (the tenant) agreed, in writing, that Y would rent an apartment from X for
R12 000 per month. The duties and responsibilities of both parties were delineated
Name and discuss ONLY the theories that best explain how the judge decided this case.
The scenario presented involves a judge who refuses to grant an order compelling a landlord to
fix a roof, based on the peculiar reasoning that rodents "enrich a space with life" and are
comparable to pets. This decision raises important questions about how judges decide cases
and what constrains judicial decision-making. The judge's reasoning demonstrates a departure
from traditional legal interpretation and can best be explained by specific theories of
adjudication.
The Postmodern/Critical Theory Approach
The judge's decision in this scenario is best explained by postmodern theories of adjudication,
specifically the critical theory that judges make decisions based on the "unbounded free play of
the judicial mind."¹ According to this view, there is nothing that constrains judges, and they
simply make up their own minds based on their personal preferences, culture, upbringing, and
prejudices.²
, In this case, the judge does not engage with the plain meaning of the contract or the established
legal principles regarding a landlord's obligations. Instead, the judge imposes a personal and
unconventional view that rodents add value to a property. This is precisely what postmodern
critical theorists describe, the judge is not constrained by the text of the contract, the intention of
the parties, or legal precedent. The judge's personal opinion about animals becomes the
deciding factor.
The judge's reasoning exemplifies what the study guide describes as the view that "rules either
do not exist or are only used as smokescreens for political decisions of judges."³ The judge pays
no attention to the contractual clause requiring the landlord to maintain the property in a
"condition reasonably suitable for the use for which the property is let." Instead, the judge
substitutes personal preference for legal analysis.
¹ LJU4801 Study Guide, 'Legal Philosophy' (University of South Africa 2017) 122.
² LJU4801 Study Guide 122.
³ LJU4801 Study Guide 122.
Also, this decision aligns with the idea that "anything goes" in judicial decision-making.⁴ The
judge's comparison of rodents to cats and dogs ignores fundamental legal and factual
distinctions rodents are generally considered pests that can cause health hazards and property
damage, unlike domesticated pets. The judge appears to be making a personal value judgment
rather than applying legal principles.
Contrast with Objectivist Theories
To fully understand why the postmodern critical theory best explains this decision, it is useful to
contrast it with objectivist theories that the judge clearly did not follow.
Textualism
