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
Tax Law [2024] ZAWCHC 63

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v J Company (14944/19)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v J Company (14944/19) [2024] ZAWCHC 63; 87 SATC 176 (29 February 2024)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
14944/19
Judge
Kusevitsky

The court held that SARS is entitled under section 46 of the Tax Administration Act to request un-redacted documents from the taxpayer, as the information sought is foreseeably relevant to the administration of a tax Act. The taxpayer cannot unilaterally determine what is relevant or redact information that may impact SARS's ability to assess tax liability. The court found that SARS's requests were not unreasonable or a fishing expedition, and that the taxpayer's argument regarding the need for an objectively identifiable class of taxpayers was not applicable where the taxpayer is identified…

Source excerpt

  • Tax Administration Act Section 46
  • Relevant Material
  • Information Gathering Powers
  • Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
  • Confidentiality And Privilege
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2021] ZAGPPHC 372

Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (44983/2020)

Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (44983/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 372 (4 June 2021)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
44983/2020
Judge
Van Zyl

The court found that the First Respondent failed to lay a sufficient factual basis for the relevance of the reports requested under rule 35(12). Mere reference to the reports in the founding affidavit does not automatically entitle the First Respondent to discovery; the requesting party must identify aspects, issues, or possible grounds of opposition to which the documents might be relevant. The First Respondent's assertions were conclusionary and lacked detail as to how the reports would assist in its defence or relate to the grounds for winding-up. The Applicants' denial of relevance under…

Source excerpt

  • Discovery Under Uniform Rules
  • Winding Up Of Companies
  • Just And Equitable Ground
  • Relevance Of Documents
  • Confidentiality And Privilege
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2016] ZAGPPHC 1144

ISP Cash Ekurhuleni (Pty) Ltd v ISP Cash (Pty) Ltd (52620/2015)

ISP Cash Ekurhuleni (Pty) Ltd v ISP Cash (Pty) Ltd (52620/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1144 (7 December 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
52620/2015
Judge
A. Maier-Frawley

The court found that the documents sought by the applicant under Rule 35(12) are relevant to the issues in the main winding-up application, as they pertain to the existence and nature of agreements and alleged misrepresentations central to the dispute. Confidentiality does not constitute privilege and cannot be used to refuse disclosure of relevant documents. The respondent failed to substantiate its claim of privilege and did not provide evidence of actual prejudice. The procedural requirements of Rule 30A were substantially complied with, as the respondent was afforded more than the require…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 35 12 Document Production
  • Rule 30a Non Compliance
  • Winding Up Proceedings
  • Relevance Of Evidence
  • Confidentiality And Privilege
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.