Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a suretyship dispute, holding that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success.
Bombela Operating Company (Pty) LtdTD v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 589/2021) [2025] ZALCJHB 297 (11 July 2025)
The Labour Court reinstated Bombela’s review and set aside an unfair-suspension award, holding the precautionary suspension was fair under Long v SAB.
Independent Development Trust v Moepathutse Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (Application for Leave to Appeal) (2024/031868) [2025] ZAGPPHC 711 (11 July 2025)
The High Court refused IDT leave to appeal, holding that the applicants showed no reasonable prospects of success and that late affidavits were not properly before court.
Sheriff of the High Court, Halfway-Alexandra v Maepa (13604/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 728 (11 July 2025)
The High Court set aside a sale in execution after the purchaser failed to pay the balance and comply with the conditions of sale under Rule 46(11).
Makhetha v The State (A102/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 210 (10 July 2025)
The High Court upheld a sentence appeal in a rape matter, finding the trial court failed to balance mitigating and aggravating factors evenly.
Zulu v Road Accident Fund (2023/024137) [2025] ZAGPPHC 714 (10 July 2025)
The court held that the defendant, having been barred from delivering its plea, could not automatically re-enter the litigation or plead to the amended particulars of claim without a formal application to uplift the bar. The amendment of the plaintiff's claim did not constitute the introduction of new issues nor did it entitle the defendant to plead afresh. The only route available to the defendant was to apply for upliftment of the bar or for condonation, which was not done. Allowing automatic upliftment would undermine the plaintiff's rights and the court's discretion, and infringe the audi…
Source excerpt
Digicall Transport Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gosa and Others (JR1083/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 303 (10 July 2025)
The Court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis for its grounds of review in its founding papers and did not supplement its case with a supplementary affidavit. The applicant merely advanced conclusions without supporting evidence and improperly attempted to make out its case in heads of argument. The Commissioner’s findings were based on the evidence before her, which showed that the restructuring was not bona fide but rather a device to compel the third respondent to accept a reduced salary. The consultation process was a fait accompli, and no genuine alternatives wer…
Source excerpt
Mabundla v Bollore Logistics (J1038/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 318 (10 July 2025)
The Labour Court found that the jurisdictional requirements for making the settlement agreement an order of court under section 158(1)(c) and 158(1A) of the LRA were satisfied. However, the respondent had already complied with the terms of the agreement by paying the applicant the full amount of R150,000.00, as evidenced by proof of payment and the applicant's own concession. As a result, granting the application would have no practical effect, as the agreement had been fully performed. The applicant's claim for additional money was irrelevant to the present application and should be pursued…
Source excerpt
HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024) [2025] ZALAC 42 (10 July 2025)
The court found that the rationale for retrenchment advanced by Fusion was misleading and did not reflect the true reason for the dismissals. The evidence showed that Fusion transferred key business units and revenue streams to the appellant, creating a self-induced financial crisis. The failure to disclose audited financial statements and other financial information undermined the consultation process and prevented the affected employees from challenging the rationale or proposing alternatives. The selection criteria were not agreed upon, and no objective evidence supported their fairness. T…
Source excerpt
Nortje v Pierre van Ryneveld Vet Clinic CC and Others (52043/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 709 (10 July 2025)
The High Court held a veterinary clinic liable for a dog’s burn injury during surgery, awarding emotional shock and travel expenses, but dismissing refund and lost-income claims.
Explore more
