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
A.Z v S (Appeal) (A41/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 340 (11 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against life imprisonment for the murder of the appellant’s young cousin, holding there were no substantial and compelling circumstances.
Carnaby Way Investments (Pty) Ltd v Koch and Others (532/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 73 (11 August 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the criminal evidential burden of proof that the first respondent was aware of the court order. Although the first respondent was present during the proceedings, there was no evidence that the order was served on her or brought to her attention prior to the present application. Without proof of knowledge, the requirements for contempt, specifically wilfulness and mala fides, could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. The application for contempt was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
HOD: Western Cape Education Department and Others v Equal Education Law Centre and Others (1003/2023) [2025] ZASCA 116 (11 August 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 53(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court is limited to the production of records relevant to the administrative decision subject to judicial review. The High Court erred by granting an order compelling the Department to produce documents and information unrelated to the specific review relief sought, including materials intended to support declaratory and mandamus claims. Such relief requires separate procedural mechanisms and cannot be obtained through Rule 53. The Department had provided a record sufficient for the review of its placement decisions f…
Source excerpt
Ceyster v Road Accident Fund (5469/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 343 (11 August 2025)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages after finding an unidentified driver solely caused the collision.
S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 341 (11 August 2025)
The Court found that Delano Saptoe was a co-accused of accused 3 and 14 at the time he made the warning statement in the lower court. The statement was made after the alleged offence and did not advance a common purpose; it was a narrative statement recounting past events. The statement did not qualify as an executive statement under the common law exception and thus could not be admitted against accused 3 and 14. Furthermore, the statement was taken in violation of Saptoe's constitutional right to legal representation, as he requested a lawyer before giving the statement but was denied one.…
Source excerpt
Sunset Game Lodge CC v Da Costa and Another (9452/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 152 (8 August 2025)
The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant established reasonable prospects of success on appeal. There was no material factual dispute requiring referral to trial, and the matter was capable of determination on affidavit. The lease agreement was validly cancelled, and the applicant failed to show entitlement to transfer of ownership. The issue regarding the Kruger-permit was rendered moot by the cancellation. The cost order was properly granted to the successful party, and no irregularity or misdirection was shown. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was…
Source excerpt
Van till Outdoor (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/032964) [2025] ZAGPJHC 774 (8 August 2025)
The High Court held that Johannesburg’s Outdoor Advertising By-Laws do not authorise JMPD impoundments, and granted declaratory and interdictory relief.
The Constitutional Court held that the Fund failed to conduct a proper investigation of dependency and therefore did not properly exercise its discretion under section 37C. It also held that the Adjudicator breached audi alteram partem in not giving the Fund a proper opportunity to respond. Dependency for section 37C purposes is determined with reference to the date of the member’s death, although changed circumstances may affect the equitable distribution. The SCA erred in treating the factual dependency issue as unchallenged and in stating that a person must still be a beneficiary at the ti…
Source excerpt
Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23) [2025] ZANCHC 71 (8 August 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a proper and sufficient explanation for their default in filing a plea, both before and after the second notice of bar. The applicants confused the events surrounding the first and second notices of bar and did not clarify the alleged oversight or their belief that they were still engaged in Rule 28 proceedings. The correspondence relied upon did not substantiate their explanation. The applicants did not provide details of their intended defence or annex a draft plea, making it impossible for the court to assess prospects of success. The c…
Source excerpt
Sibiya v Morgan-Mashale (6342/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 232 (8 August 2025)
High Court defamation case over social media posts alleging crime-scene tampering and bribery; the court found plausible defences and discharged the rule nisi.
Explore more
