South Africa Case Law

Gumede v Minister of Home Affairs (2024/026615)

Gumede v Minister of Home Affairs (2024/026615) [2025] ZAGPJHC 173 (23 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/026615

Judge

W.J. du Plessis

The court held that the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action in delict. Although the conduct complained of may constitute administrative action, the plaintiff is not seeking a review under PAJA but rather damages for negligent conduct. The principle of subsidiarity does not preclude a delictual claim in these circumstances. The plaintiff pleaded the essential elements of a delictual claim: wrongful act or omission, fault, causation, and damages. The pleadings are sufficiently particular to enable the defendant to respond, and evidence could be led to prove the claim. Therefore, the…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Bill Of Rights Infringement
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Identity Document Dispute

Sethaba v Minister of Police (1077/2023)

Sethaba v Minister of Police (1077/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 140 (20 June 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1077/2023

Judge

R D Hendricks

The High Court found the plaintiff’s arrest and overnight detention unlawful and awarded R60,000 in damages, plus interest and party-and-party costs.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Damages Assessment
• Bill Of Rights Infringement
• Default Judgment
• Costs Award

Trustees for the Time Being for the Children's Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others, Mukaddam and Others v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (25302/10, 25353/10)

Trustees for the Time Being for the Children's Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others, Mukaddam and Others v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (25302/10, 25353/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 102 (7 April 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25302/10, 25353/10

The court dismissed applications to certify consumer and distributor class actions over alleged bread cartel conduct, finding the proposed procedures and class definitions inadequate.

• Class Action Certification
• Standing Under Section 38
• Damages For Cartel Conduct
• Competition Act Section 4
• Bill Of Rights Infringement
• Procedural Requirements For Class Actions

Claassen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (A238/09)

Claassen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (A238/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 190; 2010 (2) SACR 451 (WCC) ; 2010 (6) SA 399 (WCC) ; [2010] 4 All SA 197 (WCC) (8 December 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A238/09

Judges

A.G. Binns-Ward, E. Moosa

The court held that although the magistrate acted negligently and contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, judicial immunity bars a claim for damages against a magistrate for acts performed in a judicial capacity unless there is proof of malice or bad faith. The magistrate's conduct, while misdirected and negligent, did not amount to malice. The doctrine of judicial immunity is rooted in legal policy to protect judicial independence and is consistent with constitutional principles. The appellant's right to personal liberty was infringed, but the denial of a delictual claim ag…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Immunity
• Wrongful Detention
• Aquilian Action
• Personal Liberty
• Vicarious Liability
• Bill Of Rights Infringement