South Africa Case Law

Ntuli v S (128/2023)

Ntuli v S (128/2023) [2025] ZASCA 114 (30 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

128/2023

Judges

Matojane, Unterhalter, Koen, Coppin, Dawood

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State did not indicate in the charge sheet, nor at any stage of the proceedings, that it intended to rely on the doctrine of common purpose in respect of the attempted murder counts. The evidence presented was contradictory regarding the appellant's direct participation, and the State's case was prosecuted on the basis of individual culpability. The full court erred in confirming the convictions by applying common purpose, as the appellant was not forewarned and could not properly defend himself against that basis for conviction. This amounted to a vi…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Requirements
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Mazatu and Another v OR Tambo District Municipality and Others (Reasons) (2660/2025)

Mazatu and Another v OR Tambo District Municipality and Others (Reasons) (2660/2025) [2025] ZAECMHC 68 (27 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2660/2025

Judge

Rusi

The court granted urgent interim relief stopping termination of water supply to occupiers of a Mthatha property, pending review, because notice and fair procedure were inadequate.

• Right Of Access To Water
• Procedural Fairness
• Interim Interdict
• Municipal Services
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Condonation Of Internal Remedies

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 184/23)

Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 184/23) [2025] ZACC 8; 2025 (7) BCLR 779 (CC); 2025 (4) SA 323 (CC) (6 May 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 184/23

Judges

Maya CJ, Madlanga ADCJ, Majiedt J, Mhlantla J, Seegobin AJ, Theron J, Tolmay AJ, Tshiqi J

Section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 is unconstitutional because it causes South African citizens to lose their citizenship automatically and without notice or legitimate government purpose when they voluntarily acquire citizenship in another country. This automatic loss constitutes a deprivation of citizenship in violation of section 20 of the Constitution, regardless of whether it results in statelessness. The provision is arbitrary, irrational, and not justified under section 36 of the Constitution. Ministerial discretion under section 6(2) does not cure the defe…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship Rights
• Automatic Loss Of Citizenship
• Dual Citizenship
• Ministerial Discretion
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Gerntholtz and Others v Pieterse N.O and Others (3958/2023)

Gerntholtz and Others v Pieterse N.O and Others (3958/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 51 (18 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3958/2023

Judge

R Allie

The High Court held a testamentary bequest to Boerelegioen-related entities void for vagueness and contrary to public policy, and ordered intestate succession.

• Testamentary Freedom
• Public Policy Exception
• Racial Discrimination
• Void For Vagueness
• Private Security Regulation
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC 29; [2025] 2 All SA 230 (GP); 2025 (4) SA 249 (GP) (23 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

071891/2023

Judge

Twala M L

The court found that the SRD grant regulations and procedures unlawfully and unconstitutionally excluded eligible applicants from accessing social assistance, violating section 27 of the Constitution. The online-only application process constituted an unreasonable barrier for poor and vulnerable persons, lacking justification for differentiation from other grants. The definitions of 'income' and 'financial support' were interpreted too broadly, resulting in unjust exclusions. Both the bank and database verification processes were unreliable, lacked conflict resolution mechanisms, and operated…

Source excerpt

• Social Assistance
• Progressive Realisation
• Regulatory Invalidity
• Income Thresholds
• Procedural Fairness
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

African Climate Alliance and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (56907/2021)

African Climate Alliance and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (56907/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1271 (4 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56907/2021

Judge

van der Westhuizen

The court found that the decisions to procure 1500 megawatts of new coal-fired power under the IRP 2019, the Minister's determination, and NERSA's concurrence were reviewable under the principle of legality and, in the case of NERSA, under PAJA. The respondents failed to provide evidence that adequate consideration was given to the environmental and health impacts on children and future generations, as required by sections 24 and 28 of the Constitution. Public participation was found to be inadequate, particularly regarding the material change in the 2019 IRP. The respondents did not discharg…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Public Participation
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Integrated Resource Plan
• Ministerial Policy Review
• Children S Rights

Transasia 1 (Pty) Ltd v Sherif of the High Court and Others (Leave to Appeal) (10895/2024P)

Transasia 1 (Pty) Ltd v Sherif of the High Court and Others (Leave to Appeal) (10895/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 91 (22 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

10895/2024P

Judge

P C Bezuidenhout

The court found that the Sheriff acted within the scope of a valid court order authorising the attachment and removal of the caterpillar wherever it was found. The Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for the alleged limitation of its fundamental rights, and the constitutional issues raised were not substantiated on the papers. The wording of the order was standard and accepted by all parties, and the Sheriff was not required to seek further court approval to enter the premises. The facts of the cited constitutional cases were distinguishable, as they dealt with legislation rather th…

Source excerpt

• Execution Of Court Orders
• Right To Privacy
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Leave To Appeal
• Search And Seizure

Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (2609/2021)

Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (2609/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 111 (11 October 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2609/2021

Judge

M.C. Mamosebo

The court found that the applicant, Koingnaas Belastingbetalersvereniging, lacked locus standi in the counter-application due to non-compliance with its own constitution, which was dispositive of its participation. The applicant's reliance on Van Staden NO and Others v Pro Whiz Group (Pty) Ltd was misplaced, as the right to participate is contingent on compliance with internal governance. The requirements for a final interdict were met by the municipality, which acted to protect its functions from unlawful interference. The applicant's arguments regarding necessity and the development of comm…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Final Interdict
• Development Of Common Law
• Municipal Governance
• Necessity
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Head of Department: Free State Provincial Treasury v Member of the Executive Council for Finance (MEC): Free State Provincial Government and Others (990/2024)

Head of Department: Free State Provincial Treasury v Member of the Executive Council for Finance (MEC): Free State Provincial Government and Others (990/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 303 (3 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

990/2024

Judge

J J F Hefer

The court found that, although the applicant has alternative remedies in the form of a pending review and anticipated disciplinary proceedings, there are constitutional issues at stake, particularly regarding the applicant's rights under sections 10 and 33(1) of the Constitution. The court accepted, at least prima facie, that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success in the review application. The implementation of recommendations by the respondents may affect the applicant's rights and reputation, potentially causing irreparable harm. Given the importance of the constitutional issues…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Alternative Remedy
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Administrative Action
• Leave To Appeal
• Prospects Of Success

Embrace Project NPC and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (04856/22)

Embrace Project NPC and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (04856/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 961; 2025 (1) SACR 36 (GP) (30 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

04856/22

Judge

Baqwa

The High Court held that key sexual offences provisions are unconstitutional to the extent that they allow a subjective belief in consent without objectively reasonable steps.

• Sexual Offences Amendment Act
• Consent In Sexual Offences
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Gender Based Violence
• Objective Vs Subjective Fault
• International Human Rights Obligations