This article explores how law communicates socio-economic injustice under fundamentally different legal orders. It consists of a comparison of two appeal court judgment which are more than thirty years apart: Southern Insurance Association v Bailey (1984) and Komape v Minister of Basic Education (2020). Relying on the work of Johan van der Walt, the argument in relation to the Bailey case is that the judgment is characterised by a structural silence in relation to justice which, in turn, reflects a logic of unacknowledged sacrifice. This is a sacrifice of Aristotelian corrective justice at the altar of the exigencies of an apartheid political economy grounded in the exploitation of Black labour. The article then proceeds to an exposition of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Komape case. It is argued that, for several reasons, the Komape decision can be understood as the rudiments of a precarious resistance of justice to the socioeconomics of the new legal order. The judgment is explicitly characterised by an acknowledgement of sacrifice. The article concludes with a brief reflection, in the postscript, on the spectre of the unsacrificeable that the Komape judgment inevitably also raises.

本文探讨了在根本不同的法律秩序下法律如何传达社会经济不公正现象。它包含两个相距三十多年的上诉法院判决的比较：南方保险协会诉Bailey（1984）和Komape诉基础教育部长（2020）。依托约翰·范德华特（Johan van der Walt）的工作，与贝利案有关的论点是，判决的特征是与正义有关的结构性沉默，这反过来又反映了未经承认的牺牲的逻辑。这是亚里士多德矫正正义在基于剥削黑人劳工的种族隔离政治经济的迫切祭坛上的牺牲。然后，本文阐述了最高上诉法院对Komape案的最新判决。有人认为，出于多种原因，可以将科马佩决定理解为对新法律秩序的社会经济学economic可危的抵抗的雏形。判决的明确特征是对牺牲的认可。本文的结尾部分简短地总结了一下：