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
Egoli Sport (Pty) Ltd and Others v Global Sports Betting (Pty) Ltd (2024/065348) [2025] ZAGPJHC 575 (10 June 2025)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim for failing to disclose a cause of action, finding no contractual nexus, delictual duty, or actionable damage pleaded.
IPC Plumbing SA (Pty) Ltd v Azraprty (Pty) Ltd (079559/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 438 (9 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 28(4) amendment application and upheld an exception, finding the pleadings still failed to clearly disclose a cause of action against the first defendant.
Mketo v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Appeal) (13636/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 65 (24 February 2025)
The Full Bench found that the trial court erred in concluding the Appellant failed to establish a contractual relationship with the Respondent. The Appellant's unchallenged evidence and provision of a train ticket established her status as a fare-paying passenger. The Respondent's failure to close the carriage doors constituted a wrongful omission, as public carriers owe a duty of care to passengers. The harm suffered by the Appellant—jumping from the moving train to escape an imminent attack—was a foreseeable consequence of the Respondent's negligent omission. Applying the principles from Ma…
Source excerpt
JFE Electronic Engineering (Pty) Ltd t/a JFE Security v Buildcost Quantity Surveyors and Another (4320/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 73 (19 October 2021)
The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding no cause of action was properly pleaded on contractual and delictual grounds.
Bekker v Apprica Labs (Pty) Ltd and Another (74482/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 158 (9 March 2021)
The High Court upheld an exception, finding the plaintiff’s particulars failed to plead a cause of action against the second defendant.
Ubunzima Trading Enterprises CC v Uthukela District Municipaliti (11082/2015) [2019] ZAKZPHC 14 (12 March 2019)
The court held that the deeds of cession were valid and enforceable, and ordered the municipality to pay the retained sums to the plaintiff with interest.
Poole v Zephan (Pty) Ltd and Others (39110/2016; 39109/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 282 (22 January 2018)
The High Court refused summary judgment in a share repurchase dispute, finding unresolved issues about contractual nexus, locus standi, and the effect of business rescue.
Holloway and Another v Padi Emea Limited (38785-2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 381; 2020 (5) SA 172 (GJ) (8 March 2017)
The court found that jurisdiction in South Africa is not limited to strict physical presence or attachment but is determined by a wider test of appropriateness and convenience, as established in the Multi-Links and Strang cases. The applicants demonstrated sufficient connecting factors, including local business operations, employment of a regional manager, and the impact of the expulsion decision within South Africa. The court held that Rule 53 applies to the disciplinary proceedings of the foreign tribunal, and that the South Gauteng High Court has jurisdiction to order the production of the…
Source excerpt
Ibhubhezi Powerlines CC v Udumo Trading 26 (Pty) Ltd and Another (5011/2015, 283/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 72 (8 September 2016)
The High Court dismissed a spoliation application over an overhead power line, holding the applicant lacked possession and could not assert a lien against Eskom.
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v Mettle Management Services (Pty) Ltd (2010/41913) [2013] ZAGPJHC 95 (17 April 2013)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not disclose sufficient averments to sustain a finding of wrongfulness or unlawfulness. The defendant, although instrumental in arranging and administering the debt securitisation scheme, was not a party to any of the transaction documents and owed no contractual obligations to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could have protected itself contractually but failed to do so. Public policy considerations and established legal principles dictate that Aquilian liability should not be extended to impose a duty of care on the defendant in these…
Source excerpt
Explore more
