Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supposing some legal solutions lay in exploring and understanding the substantive content of ubuntu, what then? Is there no ground for suspecting that some legal scholars and courts, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand ubuntu? That the terrible, seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to ubuntu have been unskilled and unseemly methods of solving some legal problems? Certainly, some legal problems have not rendered themselves to proper solutions through such methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Radebe et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: