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
Dhlamini v Schumann, Van den Heever and Slabbert Inc and Others (505/2021) [2023] ZASCA 79 (29 May 2023)
The SCA held the appeal was moot on the merits in an Anton Piller matter, but it set aside the high court’s costs order and ordered each party to pay its own costs.
Deltamune (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tiger Brands Limited and Others (847/2020) [2022] ZASCA 15; [2022] 2 All SA 26 (SCA); 2022 (3) SA 339 (SCA) (4 February 2022)
The SCA set aside most third-party subpoenas in a listeriosis class action, holding they were too broad, insufficiently specific, and largely irrelevant.
Tiger Brands Limited and Others v Pillay and Others (Famous Brands and Another Intervening) (2019/25309; 2018/12835; 2019/36431) [2020] ZAGPJHC 160 (23 June 2020)
The High Court held that Tiger Brands could compel non-party document production by subpoena in the listeriosis class action, subject to access controls.
Linkside and Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others (3844/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 111 (17 December 2014)
The court ordered the Eastern Cape education authorities to reimburse schools, regularize educator appointments, and follow transparent vacancy-filling procedures.
Winvoel and Others v MEC for Social Development, Northern Cape and Others (1014/09) [2011] ZANCHC 31 (21 October 2011)
The court found that the applicants made proper applications for drought relief grants on 15 May 2004, which were not considered or decided upon by the respondents. The evidence of the applicants, supported by independent witnesses, was preferred over the contradictory and hearsay evidence of the respondents. The delay in bringing the application was excusable due to the applicants’ lack of sophistication and the logistical difficulties of organizing a class action among indigent persons. The court held that the failure to take a decision is reviewable under PAJA and that the 180-day period s…
Source excerpt
Koelman and Others v MEC: Social Services & Population Development, Northern Cape (1025/2005) [2006] ZANCHC 6 (1 February 2006)
High Court judgment on multiple social-grant interlocutory applications, holding that the consent orders and party-and-party costs were justified.
Explore more
