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
Ralarala obo Ralarala v Minister of Police (6948/2018) [2021] ZAWCHC 224; 2022 (1) SACR 393 (WCC) (4 November 2021)
The High Court held the Minister of Police directly liable after a SAPS member with a poor firearm record shot and permanently paralysed Sonwabile Ralarala.
Minister of Social Development and Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (36962/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 794 (14 December 2020)
The High Court granted the Minister leave to appeal on a narrow question about a statutory and constitutional duty under DORA, but dismissed the MECs' leave application with costs.
Bakwena ba Mare a Phogole v Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Gauteng and North west and Another (98/2010) [2016] ZALCC 18 (19 October 2016)
The Respondents, as organs of state, are bound by the court order dated 27 January 2014, which required them to publish the Applicant's land claim in the Government Gazette and approve funding for legal representation. Their subsequent reluctance to comply, based on new investigations and concerns about the scope of the claim, does not absolve them of their legal obligation. The Act provides a clear process for the lodgment and publication of claims, and the Respondents had ample opportunity to raise concerns before consenting to the order. Their conduct in delaying compliance and failing to…
Source excerpt
Von Beneke v Minister of Defence (50105/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 227; 2012 (5) SA 225 (GNP) (22 November 2011)
The court held the Minister of Defence vicariously liable after a soldier supplied rifle parts and ammunition that enabled an armed robbery and shooting.
Freedom Under Law v Acting Chairperson: Judicial Service Commission and Others (2011 (3) SA 549 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 513 (SCA)) [2011] ZASCA 59; 52/2011 (31 March 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Freedom Under Law had standing to bring the application, given its mission and the public interest in judicial integrity. The JSC failed in its constitutional duty by dismissing the complaint against Judge President Hlophe without a proper investigation, specifically by not allowing cross-examination and by applying an inappropriate standard of proof. The procedure adopted was not suitable for the final determination of serious allegations of judicial misconduct. The JSC's decision was unreasonable and unlawful under PAJA and inconsistent with the Constit…
Source excerpt
Explore more
