South Africa Case Law

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma v President of the Republic of South Africa

The applicants did not plead a specific constitutional obligation uniquely imposed on the President that he failed to fulfil; instead, they challenged the manner in which he exercised discretionary powers. That does not engage the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction under section 167(4)(e). Nor did the applicants establish exceptional circumstances or the interests of justice for direct access under section 167(6)(a), especially where the High Court was available and could grant interim relief.

Source excerpt

• Exclusive jurisdiction
• Direct access
• Presidential powers
• Appointment of acting minister
• Commission of inquiry
• Costs

Jana Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another

Section 26(1)(a)-(c) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act differentiates on the ground of gender by allowing only women, and not men, equivalent surname-assumption options after marriage. That differentiation serves no legitimate government purpose, unfairly discriminates on the listed ground of gender, and infringes dignity. The limitation is not justifiable under section 36. The declaration of invalidity is therefore confirmed and suspended for 24 months with interim reading-in style relief to avoid continued discrimination while Parliament remedies the defect.

Source excerpt

• Equality
• Unfair discrimination
• Dignity
• Surname change after marriage
• Confirmation of constitutional invalidity
• Remedy and suspension of invalidity

Sunwest International (Pty) Limited t/a Grandwest Casino and Entertainment World and Another v Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board and Another

The Court held that the dispute was an ordinary matter of statutory interpretation concerning whether freeplay credits are included in the taxable revenue of casino operators, and that neither constitutional jurisdiction nor general jurisdiction was engaged because proper consideration of constitutional factors could not plausibly lead to a different outcome and the issue did not transcend the narrow interests of the parties. The applications for leave to appeal were therefore refused.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Interpretation of statutes
• Constitutional jurisdiction
• General public importance
• Gambling tax
• Freeplay credits

Calasca Trading 114 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rhondo Industrial (Pty) Ltd and Another (026912/2022)

Calasca Trading 114 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rhondo Industrial (Pty) Ltd and Another (026912/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 773 (13 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

026912/2022

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court found that the oral agreement reached in October 2021 and memorialised in the 4 November 2021 email was an agreement between Mr. Glen Fine and Mr. Berger personally to share equally any amount recovered from Mr. David Fine. The context, conduct of the parties, and the evidence presented demonstrated that the individuals did not distinguish between themselves and their companies in the operation of the joint venture. The money recovered from Mr. David Fine was paid into Mr. Berger's personal account, further supporting the conclusion that the agreement bound the individuals. The cour…

Source excerpt

• Joint Venture Dispute
• Contractual Interpretation
• Personal Liability
• Misjoinder
• Settlement Agreement

Hendricks v City of Cape Town and Another (12803/2024)

Hendricks v City of Cape Town and Another (12803/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 344 (13 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12803/2024

Judge

Da Silva Salie

Transnet Limited has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, as the dispute over ownership and responsibility for the manhole directly implicates its legal interests. The risk of inconsistent judgments and prejudice to the applicant, particularly regarding the prescription period, necessitates joinder. The denial of liability by Transnet does not negate its interest; rather, the dispute itself underscores the need for its participation. Joinder will not cause undue prejudice to Transnet beyond its involvement in the proceedings, which is inherent in any joinder.…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Municipal Liability
• Prescription Period

Old Mutual Alternate Risk Transfer Insure Limited v SA Guarantee Specialists Proprietary Limited and Another (2025/127863)

Old Mutual Alternate Risk Transfer Insure Limited v SA Guarantee Specialists Proprietary Limited and Another (2025/127863) [2025] ZAWCHC 345 (13 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/127863

Judge

Morrissey AJ

The High Court granted urgent access and inspection relief to an insurer against its underwriting manager after unauthorised offshore guarantees and non-compliance concerns.

• Specific Performance
• Cell Captive Insurance
• Contract Termination
• Data Access Rights
• Breach Of Contract
• Fiduciary Duties

Vorster and Another v Bala (Leave to Appeal) (24463/2013)

Vorster and Another v Bala (Leave to Appeal) (24463/2013) [2025] ZAGPJHC 776 (12 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24463/2013

Judge

G Ally

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to grant leave.

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Costs Order
• Duty Of Care
• Leave-to-appeal
• Reasonable-prospects-of-success

Mashilo v Road Accident Fund (164/24)

Mashilo v Road Accident Fund (164/24) [2025] ZAMPMHC 38 (12 August 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

164/24

Judge

J T Leso

The High Court admitted expert evidence on affidavit, awarded R440,758 for loss of future income, ordered a medical undertaking, and postponed general damages.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Future Medical Expenses
• Expert Evidence On Affidavit
• Jurisdiction General Damages
• Road-accident-fund

Metro Chicken (Pty) Ltd and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Durban and Others (D14387/2023)

Metro Chicken (Pty) Ltd and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Durban and Others (D14387/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 51 (12 August 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D14387/2023

Judge

Mossop

The High Court dismissed a liquidation challenge for lack of standing and no proof of misconduct. Condonation for a late reply was also refused with costs.

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Liquidator Powers
• Locus Standi
• Sale Of Assets
• Condonation
• Punitive Costs

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920)

B.U v C.M and Others (2025/017920) [2025] ZAWCHC 342 (12 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/017920

Judge

Njokweni

The court found that the First Respondent's conditions for granting consent to the minor child's overseas travel were unreasonable and amounted to a refusal of consent. Despite the First Respondent's assertion that he did not oppose the travel, the conditions he sought to impose were excessive and not aligned with the child's best interests. The court exercised its jurisdiction under section 18(5) of the Children’s Act and section 28 of the Constitution, determining that the Applicant should be permitted to travel with the minor child to the Czech Republic, subject to reasonable conditions th…

Source excerpt

• Child Travel Consent
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Mirror Order
• Section 18 Children Act
• Section 28 Constitution