Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Administrative Law [2013] ZAKZDHC 27

Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012)

Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 27 (8 May 2013)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
2604/2012
Judge
Ndlovu

The court found that the applicant was entitled to relief as the first respondent had erected an advertising sign and supporting structures without authorisation, in contravention of municipal bylaws and national legislation. The first respondent's constitutional challenge was not properly before the court due to persistent and deliberate non-compliance with rule 16A(1), which is a peremptory procedural requirement. The explanation for the late filing of the rule 16A notice was neither valid nor bona fide, and condonation was refused. The applicant's own late filing of its answering/replying…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Bylaws
  • Third Party Advertising
  • Constitutional Compliance
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Condonation
  • Commercial Speech
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2013] ZAKZDHC 15

Ethekwini Municipality v Swish Property Eight (Pty) Ltd (1071/2012)

Ethekwini Municipality v Swish Property Eight (Pty) Ltd (1071/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 15 (29 April 2013)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
1071/2012
Judge
Vahed

The court found that the respondents erected advertising signage and related structures without the applicant's authority, in contravention of the applicant's advertising bylaws. The bylaws validly require written permission and the payment of prescribed fees for such signage. The respondents' constitutional challenge was not substantiated by evidence of the actual impact of the fees on their means or the revenue generated by the signage. The court distinguished the present case from Dawood, as the bylaws themselves do not prescribe the quantum of fees, which are set by regulation. The respon…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Bylaws
  • Outdoor Advertising Regulation
  • Commercial Speech
  • Section 36 Limitation
  • Removal Of Structures
  • Interdictory Relief
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2012] ZASCA 107

British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health (463/2011)

British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health (463/2011) [2012] ZASCA 107; [2012] 3 All SA 593 (SCA) (20 June 2012)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
463/2011
Judges
Mthiyane, Farlam, Malan, Tshiqi, McLaren

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 3(1)(a) of the Tobacco Products Control Act, as amended, does limit the right to freedom of expression for tobacco manufacturers and consumers by prohibiting advertising and promotion, including one-to-one communications. However, this limitation is reasonable and justifiable under s 36(1) of the Constitution, given the compelling public health interests, South Africa's international obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the need to protect citizens from the harmful effects of tobacco. The Court found that less restricti…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom Of Expression
  • Commercial Speech
  • Tobacco Advertising Regulation
  • Bill Of Rights Limitation
  • Public Health Policy
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.