Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
13 August 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Stephen Collett
Moot Court
The Law Clinic in the Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) hosted the 20th annual Kovsie Moot Court Competition from 4 to 6 August 2025.

The Law Clinic in the Faculty of Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) recently hosted the 20th annual Kovsie Moot Court Competition, which brings together first-year law students from across Southern Africa. The competition took place from 4 to 6 August 2025 at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein, offering students the rare opportunity to present arguments in one of the country’s highest courts.

Participating institutions included Eduvos (Bloemfontein Campus), the University of Johannesburg, Rhodes University, and the National University of Lesotho, among others. 

 

Moot Court as a culture and a foundation

Pinky Mokemane, Moot Court Coordinator at UFS, described the competition as far more than an event. “Moot Court is a culture. It brings to life everything students have been studying. They are not just reading theory – they are applying it, speaking it, and defending it,” she said.

Over 200 first-year LLB students signed up to participate in this year’s internal selection process, and three – Niniwe Rens, Kabelo Mokhotla, and Sfiso Mbasela – were ultimately selected to represent UFS. Mokemane said being able to argue legal points in the SCA is a privilege no other university currently offers, and students should not take this opportunity for granted.

Legal Behemoth, a UFS student association that works closely with the Law Clinic to promote a strong moot culture at the university, was a critical force behind the success of this year’s Moot Court programme. The group plays a central role in planning the competition – training students, liaising with legal professionals, and teaching foundational advocacy skills from scratch.

Lethabo Lekhuleng, Chairperson of Legal Behemoth, explained that the group’s support starts long before the competition itself. “We begin by training the students from the ground up. Most of them don’t know anything about oral advocacy or courtroom procedure. So we guide them, give direction, and help them build confidence step by step,” she said.

Describing the students’ growth over the course of the competition, she added, “It was definitely the confidence [that grew]. From the first round to the final round, they became far surer of themselves in how they spoke, how they presented arguments, and how they carried themselves in court.”

Herman du Randt, a senior associate at PH Attorneys and a UFS alumnus, was one of the judges presiding over the competition. “We were looking for confidence. A student must show that they trust themselves and know their arguments. It is not only what you say, but why you say it, and the legal authority behind it,” he explained. 

Du Randt was deeply impressed, describing the students’ overall performance as “breathtaking”. “The amount of effort they put in, the depth of their research, and the clarity of their arguments was exceptional,” he said.

He also emphasised the importance of such competitions in shaping the future of legal professionals. Drawing from his experience of representing UFS internationally through Moot Court, he said, “There are thousands of students graduating with LLBs every year. You need something that makes you stand out. Moot Court is one of the most exposure-rich things you can do as a student. If you don’t take part, you miss a huge opportunity.”

 

Growth through experience: voices from the court floor

Rens and Mokhotla spoke candidly about their experience. “It was hectic. There were sleepless nights, a lot of preparation. But it was all worth it,” Rens said. Both students want to become advocates, and for them, presenting arguments in the SCA was a glimpse into their future.

Mokhotla reflected on what the experience taught her about herself: “I am not defined by failure. The fact that I stood in that court and saw my name there already meant so much. It was nerve-wracking, but I pushed myself to the limit – and that’s what I’ll take with me.”

Christopher Rawson, Acting Director of the UFS Legal Clinic, placed this year’s Moot Court effort within a broader educational vision. “The UFS Law Clinic plays a unique role in integrating practical legal education into the formal curriculum. The clinic hosts the competition and facilitates access to real-world and professionally relevant experiences in a court that is steeped in constitutional history, intellectual rigour, and the pursuit of justice. By doing so, the competition also supports the UFS’s Vision 130 commitments to producing graduates who are socially engaged, ethically grounded, and professionally competent,” he said.

Rawson also noted that early exposure to legal reasoning and oral argument builds the analytical and ethical foundation that students need. “From their initial submissions to their final oral arguments, the growth shown by our students reflects the strength of our approach – combining academic knowledge with skills-based learning and mentorship.”

Through its 20th edition, the Kovsie Moot Court Competition once again demonstrated that legal education at UFS is not confined to lecture halls. 

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept