South Africa Case Law

S v Porritt (SS40/2006)

S v Porritt (SS40/2006) [2025] ZAGPJHC 121 (13 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court found that Porritt's refusal to continue cross-examination of Ramsay was not based on any valid or lawful ground. The accused had been afforded ample opportunity and time to prepare and was fully aware of his rights and duties regarding cross-examination. His conduct constituted a deliberate and persistent attempt to delay the proceedings, as evidenced by a history of similar tactics and repeated findings by both this court and appellate courts. The interests of justice, including the rights of witnesses, complainants, and the public's confidence in the criminal justice system, outw…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Unreasonable Delay
• Cross Examination
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a
• Constitutional Limitation
• Self Represented Accused

Murray NO v Ramphele (25067/2020)

Murray NO v Ramphele (25067/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 615 (27 September 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25067/2020

Judge

Sawma

The court found that the provisional order of sequestration did not lapse merely because the matter was heard two days after the return date. The opposed motion roll operates as a continuous judicial process, and the matter was properly enrolled and before the court on the return date, merely standing down to the allocated hearing date. Even if the rule nisi had technically lapsed, the court exercised its discretion to revive it, as the matter remained res integra and there was no fault on the part of the applicant. On the constitutional argument, the court held that the respondent failed to…

Source excerpt

• Final Sequestration
• Rule Nisi Lapse
• Judicial Discretion
• Act Of Insolvency
• Constitutional Limitation

Minister of State Security v Public Protector and Others (48521/19)

Minister of State Security v Public Protector and Others (48521/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 622 (6 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48521/19

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court found that the Minister's concerns regarding national security were legitimate, as disclosure of the Inspector-General's Report would endanger SSA operatives and compromise intelligence methods. The fact that the report had been leaked and was in the public domain did not negate its classified status or render unauthorised possession lawful. The court held that the right of access to information is not absolute and may be limited in the interests of national security. The Minister's provision of a declassified, redacted version of the report was deemed a reasonable and justifiable l…

Source excerpt

• National Security
• Access To Information
• Open Justice
• Classification Of Documents
• Constitutional Limitation
• Striking Out Evidence

Masuku and Another v South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies (1062/2017)

Masuku and Another v South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies (1062/2017) [2018] ZASCA 180; 2019 (2) SA 194 (SCA); [2019] 1 All SA 608 (SCA) (4 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1062/2017

Judges

Lewis, Wallis, Zondi, Dambuza, Matojane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the impugned statements, when interpreted in their full context, did not amount to hate speech as defined by section 16(2) of the Constitution. The court found that references to 'Zionists' and other terms in the statements were directed at supporters of the State of Israel and did not constitute advocacy of hatred based on religion or ethnicity. The court emphasized that offensive, hurtful, or politically inflammatory speech remains protected unless it crosses the constitutional threshold of advocacy of hatred and incitement to harm. The Equality Court e…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Hate Speech
• Equality Act Section 10
• Constitutional Limitation
• Advocacy Of Hatred

South African Human Rights Commission v Qwelane; Qwelane v Minister for Justice and Correctional Services (EQ44/2009; EQ13/2012)

South African Human Rights Commission v Qwelane; Qwelane v Minister for Justice and Correctional Services (EQ44/2009; EQ13/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 218; [2017] 4 All SA 234 (GJ); 2018 (2) SA 149 (GJ) (18 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

EQ44/2009; EQ13/2012

Judge

D S S Moshidi

The court found that the applicant's published statements and the accompanying cartoon constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act. The statements were objectively hurtful, harmful, and propagated hatred against the LGBTI community, equating homosexuals to animals and bestiality, and undermining their dignity and equality. The right to freedom of expression, while fundamental, is not absolute and may be limited to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and harm. The Equality Act's provisions were held to be constitutionally valid, neither vague nor overbroad, and se…

Source excerpt

• Hate Speech
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Freedom Of Expression
• Human Dignity
• Constitutional Limitation
• Remedies For Discrimination

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and Others v Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2578/15)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and Others v Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2578/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 549; (2017) 38 ILJ 931 (LC) (19 December 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2578/15

Judge

Prinsloo

The court held that sections 189(1)(a)-(c) and 23(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act, as currently interpreted, do not infringe or violate the applicants’ constitutional rights. The principle of majoritarianism underlying these provisions is a legitimate legislative policy choice, endorsed by the courts and consistent with international labour standards. Retrenchment is a collective process, and consultation through representative structures realises the right to fair procedure. The extension of collective agreements to non-party employees is rational and necessary for orderly collective barga…

Source excerpt

• Collective Bargaining
• Majoritarianism
• Retrenchment
• Extension Of Collective Agreements
• Fair Labour Practices
• Constitutional Limitation

Du Toit v The Magistrate and Others (733/2015)

Du Toit v The Magistrate and Others (733/2015) [2016] ZASCA 15; [2016] 2 All SA 328 (SCA); 2016 (2) SACR 112 (SCA) (11 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

733/2015

Judges

Ponnan, Cachalia, Petse, Mbha, Victor

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the accused has a constitutional right to disclosure of the evidence against him, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the privacy and dignity interests of the children depicted in the images. The prosecution's offer of private viewing at a secure location was sufficient to meet the requirements of a fair trial, given the compelling need to prevent further duplication and distribution of child pornography. The court found that the high court erred in treating the right to disclosure as absolute and failing to consider the counterv…

Source excerpt

• Pre Trial Disclosure
• Child Pornography
• Fair Trial Rights
• Best Interests Of Child
• Constitutional Limitation
• Privacy Rights

Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012)

Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012

Judge

Pickering

The court found that the police officer acted on detailed information from informers regarding suspicious conduct at a known crime hotspot, which, objectively viewed, provided reasonable grounds for believing a search warrant would have been issued. The officer's actions were not reckless or overzealous and met the standard of reasonableness required by law. However, the statement made by the officer to the plaintiff—implying he had something to hide—was gratuitously insulting and constituted a violation of the plaintiff's dignity. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for injuria, but not fo…

Source excerpt

• Right To Privacy
• Search And Seizure
• Dignity
• Damages For Injuria
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Limitation

National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others (CCT 34/12)

National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others (CCT 34/12) [2012] ZACC 29; 2013 (2) BCLR 170 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 1 (CC) (10 December 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 34/12

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Khampepe, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta

The Constitutional Court held that section 89(5)(c) of the National Credit Act arbitrarily deprived an unregistered lender of restitutionary property rights.

• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• National Credit Act
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Statutory Interpretation
• Constitutional Limitation
• Judicial Discretion

South African Transport & Allied Workers Union v Garvis & others (007/11)

South African Transport & Allied Workers Union v Garvis & others (007/11) [2011] ZASCA 152; 2011 (6) SA 382 (SCA); 2011 (12) BCLR 1249 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 475 (SCA); [2011] 12 BLLR 1151 (SCA); (2011) 32 ILJ 2426 (SCA) (27 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

007/11

Judges

Navsa, Brand, Van Heerden, Mhlantla, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 11(2)(b) of the Regulation of Gatherings Act is not unconstitutional. The statutory defence is not illusory or internally contradictory; it is structured to ensure that liability attaches only where organisers have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The right to freedom of assembly under s 17 of the Constitution is protected only for peaceful and unarmed gatherings, and does not extend to unlawful conduct or riots. The evidence showed that the Act has not deterred public assembly or protest, and the defence in s 11(2)(b) is con…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Assembly
• Statutory Liability
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Constitutional Limitation
• Negligence
• Reverse Onus