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
Waterfall Country Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/8060881) [2025] ZAGPJHC 437 (9 May 2025)
The High Court held that Johannesburg’s water-bylaw penalties for unauthorised meters were unlawful because section 111 did not authorise them on these facts.
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission v Selective Empowerment Investments 1 Ltd [2023] ZAGPPHC 334; 35867/2020 (24 April 2023)
The court found that the technical requirements of section 81(1)(f) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 were not met, as there was no prior administrative fine or conviction within five years for substantially the same conduct. However, the applicant, as the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, is an interested person with locus standi under section 344(h) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The respondent persistently failed to comply with statutory obligations, traded in insolvent circumstances, and disregarded compliance notices. The respondent’s directors refused to voluntarily liquid…
Source excerpt
National Credit Regulator v National Consumer Tribunal and Another (A289/2021; A288/2021; A104\2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 24 (20 January 2023)
The majority held that vehicle financiers did not contravene sections 100, 101, and 102 of the National Credit Act by financing 'on the road' fees, as these fees are imposed by dealers and form part of the purchase price negotiated between the dealer and consumer. The financiers merely finance the principal debt, which includes the purchase price and any extras, and do not themselves charge or impose monetary liability for the disputed fees. The court found that the NCA does not prohibit the financing of such amounts at the consumer's request, and that the statutory provisions must be interpr…
Source excerpt
Mkhondo Municipality v Voster and Another (354/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 10 (14 April 2020)
The court found that service of the notice of motion on Ms. Mathebula, an employee in the legal department of the municipality, constituted proper service in terms of both the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act and Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules. The applicant's claim that it was not served was rejected, as the sheriff's return of service confirmed delivery to the legal department, which is responsible for litigation. The court distinguished the facts from Rustenburg Local Municipality v Rennaisance Security and Cleaning Services CC, where service was effected on an archives clerk, finding…
Source excerpt
Explore more
