South Africa Case Law

Vukile Property Fund Ltd v Gugulethu Residents and Others (19970/2024)

Vukile Property Fund Ltd v Gugulethu Residents and Others (19970/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 130 (20 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19970/2024

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court found that the respondents' letter constituted an unequivocal threat to unlawfully shut down the Gugulethu Mall and interfere with its operations, thereby infringing the applicant's right to trade and operate its business. The respondents did not dispute the applicant's factual averments nor provide any undertaking to refrain from unlawful conduct. The right to protest is protected but subject to legal limitations, including the requirement that protest be peaceful and lawful, and that the rights of others be respected. The respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with the Regul…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Right To Trade
• Unlawful Protest
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Costs Award

Nelson Mandela University and Another v Diale (Reasons) (10638/2023)

Nelson Mandela University and Another v Diale (Reasons) (10638/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 176 (13 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

10638/2023

Judge

M Bresler

The High Court granted a final interdict restraining a former student from publishing defamatory statements about NMU, its vice chancellor, and staff.

• Final Interdict
• Defamation
• Social Media Publication
• Injuria
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Final-interdict

Mgaga v Britz N.O. and Another (19935/2022)

Mgaga v Britz N.O. and Another (19935/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 480 (20 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19935/2022

Judges

Noko, Bokako

The High Court found that the magistrate was not biased and did not commit a reviewable irregularity. The applicant was afforded opportunities to present his case, including launching an application to re-open the case and challenging the ruling to submit a buccal sample. The evidence presented by the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for re-opening the case, as no new material evidence was provided. The court held that the absence of chain of custody for the previous buccal samples justified the order for a new sample, and the applicant's constitutional rights were not unreasonably…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court Decisions
• Chain Of Custody
• Forensic Dna Evidence
• Reopening Of Case
• Judicial Bias
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

Body Corporate of Balboa Park v Skeyi and Another (2023-061020)

Body Corporate of Balboa Park v Skeyi and Another (2023-061020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 361 (12 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-061020

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court held that neither the Sectional Titles Act, the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, nor the management or conduct rules expressly confer on a body corporate the power to disconnect electricity or limit water supply to defaulting owners. The applicants failed to establish that such powers are implied, ancillary, or incidental, as the test for implication requires necessity, not mere convenience. The resolutions authorising the applications were ultra vires, having been passed by trustees rather than at a general meeting, and purporting to exercise powers not conferred by statute…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Sectional Titles Act
• Implied Powers
• Levy Collection
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Mandament Van Spolie

Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Alexander; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Morata; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Mukona and Another (17074/2022; 18106/2022; 19220/2022)

Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Alexander; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Morata; Lion Ridge Body Corporate v Mukona and Another (17074/2022; 18106/2022; 19220/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 713 (21 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17074/2022; 18106/2022; 19220/2022

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court dismissed body corporate claims for arrear levies and utility disconnection orders because no rule or agreement authorising the relief was pleaded.

• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Arrear Levies
• Utility Disconnection
• Management Rules Compliance
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Founding Affidavit Requirements

S v Mgushelwana and Another (CC15/2017)

S v Mgushelwana and Another (CC15/2017) [2018] ZAECBHC 13 (30 January 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CC 15/2017

Judge

Stretch

The court found that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused committed the offences charged. The evidence included ballistically linked firearms found in their possession, reliable identification by witnesses at the scene and at formal ID parades, and corroborating CCTV footage. The court held that the search and seizure of the firearm, although conducted without a warrant, was justified by urgency and did not violate the accused's constitutional rights to an extent that rendered the trial unfair. The accused's explanations were inconsistent and mendacious, and their denial…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Identification Parade
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality v Unemployed Workers Union (UNEWU) and Others (172/2017)

Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality v Unemployed Workers Union (UNEWU) and Others (172/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 66 (1 June 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

172/2017

Judge

Beshe

The court found that the respondents' conduct, which included storming meetings, occupying municipal buildings, intimidating staff, and threatening to destabilize the municipality, went beyond peaceful protest and constituted unlawful interference with municipal operations. The respondents' own admissions and correspondence demonstrated an intention to disrupt the functioning of the municipality. While the right to protest is constitutionally protected, it must be exercised without infringing on the rights of others or disrupting essential services. The court held that the applicant was entit…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Right To Assemble
• Municipal Services Disruption
• Peaceful Protest
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

HPP and Others; Ex Parte DME and Others (45037/2016), Ex parte

HPP and Others; Ex Parte DME and Others (45037/2016), Ex parte [2017] ZAGPPHC 70; [2017] 2 All SA 171 (GP); 2017 (4) SA 528 (GP) (9 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45037/2016

Judge

Tolmay

The court found that the surrogacy facilitation agreements entered into between the applicants and Ms Strydom contravened section 301 of the Children's Act, as her services did not fall within the lawful exceptions for compensation. The payments made for facilitation services were not directly related to artificial fertilisation, pregnancy, birth, or confirmation of the surrogate motherhood agreement, nor were they bona fide professional legal or medical expenses. The limitation on Ms Strydom's right to receive payment for such services was justified in terms of section 36 of the Constitution…

Source excerpt

• Surrogate Motherhood Agreements
• Commercial Surrogacy
• Children's Act
• Unlawful Contracts
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

City of Cape Town and Others v K (17436/09)

City of Cape Town and Others v K (17436/09) [2016] ZAWCHC 164; 2017 (1) SA 593 (WCC) (1 June 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17436/09

Judge

M Sher

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a further psychiatric examination of the respondent was necessary or desirable for the assessment of damages. The respondent had already been examined by multiple experts, including psychiatrists and psychologists, whose opinions were overwhelmingly consistent regarding her diagnosis and prognosis. The court held that compelling the respondent to undergo yet another examination would be oppressive and unfair, given the psychological harm and distress caused by repeated assessments. The applicants' motivation appeared to be tactical…

Source excerpt

• Rule 36 Medical Examination
• Bodily Integrity
• Privacy And Dignity
• Quantification Of Damages
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

Ayob and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2009/4644)

Ayob and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2009/4644) [2011] ZAGPJHC 48 (29 May 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/6444

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

The court found that the application for the search warrants was lawfully authorised and did not unlawfully intrude upon the applicants' rights to dignity, privacy, and economic freedom. The judge held that the jurisdictional requirements for issuing search warrants under section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act were satisfied, as the application was supported by information on oath and reliable evidence of an organised drug syndicate. The limitation of the applicants' constitutional rights was reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution, given the seriousness…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Judicial Authorisation
• Overbroad Warrants
• Drug Offences