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
Decisions matching the current search
Msibi v Road Accident Fund (5136/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 51 (4 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove how a hit-and-run accident occurred or that the insured driver was negligent.
Moyo v S (A168/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 481 (20 May 2025)
The court found that the evidence of the police witnesses, particularly W/O Ramonyai, was not clear, satisfactory, or corroborated in all material respects. There were material discrepancies and improbabilities in their accounts regarding the arrest of the appellant and the discovery of the bank card. The failure of the State to call Captain Zulu, who was implicated by both accused and played a significant role in the arrest, justified an adverse inference against the State. The appellant's version was consistent and reasonably possibly true, and there was no reliable evidence or circumstance…
Source excerpt
Reyneveldt N.O obo Khethabahle v Minister of Safety and Security N.O and Another (2012/33658) [2025] ZAGPJHC 241 (5 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal.
Reyneveldt obo Khethabahle v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (2012/33658) [2024] ZAGPJHC 411 (25 April 2024)
A delict claim for an alleged police shooting during a protest failed because the plaintiff did not prove on a balance of probabilities that police caused the injury.
Ram Transport (South Africa) Proprietary Limited t/a Ram Hand-to-Hand Couriers v DHL Supply Chain (South Africa) Proprietary Limited (20232/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 381 (17 April 2024)
Leave to appeal was granted in a contract dispute over whether a letter of intent created a two-year exclusive arrangement terminable only for cause.
De Beer v Road Accident Fund (A5026/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 124 (28 March 2019)
On appeal, the High Court upheld the dismissal of a Road Accident Fund claim, finding the appellant failed to prove the insured driver was negligent.
Nkuna v S (AA01/2018) [2018] ZALMPPHC 41 (29 June 2018)
The High Court upheld the appeal, finding the State had not proved robbery beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of uncorroborated single-witness evidence.
S v Mothoalo (62/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 73 (8 June 2017)
The magistrate committed a material misdirection by drawing a negative inference from the accused's decision not to testify, which is constitutionally protected. However, upon review, the State's evidence, particularly the complainant's testimony, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to discharge the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's silence did not attract a negative inference, but in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the State's case stood unchallenged. The conviction and sentence were found to be in accordance with justice, and the sentence was not disturbi…
Source excerpt
National Union of Mine Workers obo Smith v Namakwa Sands, A Division of Exxaro Tsa Sands (Pty) Limited and Others (CA12/2013) [2014] ZALAC 57 (23 October 2014)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the commissioner did not commit a reviewable irregularity by failing to explicitly warn the employee that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to answer questions about Coetzee. The employee was represented and made aware, both by the commissioner and the respondent’s representative, of the consequences of his refusal. The adverse inference was only one of several factors considered, and the commissioner’s finding was supported by objective evidence, including the employee’s access to the weighbridge system, telephone records, and corroboratin…
Source excerpt
Appolus v S (A645/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 496 (11 November 2013)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for assault and resisting arrest, finding no material contradictions, prejudice, or misdirection in the trial court's reasoning.
Explore more
