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
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPJHC 958

B-Sure Africa Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Dotsure Insurance Company Limited and Another (A2023/041879)

B-Sure Africa Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Dotsure Insurance Company Limited and Another (A2023/041879) [2024] ZAGPJHC 958 (24 September 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A2023/041879
Judges
B.C Wanless, Adams, Wilson

The court held that, in the absence of a valid cross-appeal with leave, it does not have jurisdiction to grant substantive or alternative relief to the respondents. The Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013, did not alter the common law position that an appeal court may not vary an order to the detriment of the appellant without a cross-appeal. The respondents failed to comply with the Uniform Rules of Court and did not seek leave to cross-appeal, nor did they apply for condonation for non-compliance. The authorities cited by the Supreme Court of Appeal are binding and confirm that both appeals and…

Source excerpt

  • Leave To Appeal
  • Cross Appeal Requirements
  • Variation Of Orders
  • Attorney And Client Costs
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2013] ZACC 17

Nabolisa v S (CCT 105/12)

Nabolisa v S (CCT 105/12) [2013] ZACC 17; 2013 (2) SACR 221 (CC); 2013 (8) BCLR 964 (CC) (12 June 2013)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 105/12
Judges
Skweyiya, Moseneke, Van der Westhuizen, Jafta, Mogoeng, Froneman, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court, in a split decision, addressed whether the State must formally cross-appeal to seek an increase in sentence when the accused has appealed. The majority (Skweyiya J) held that section 316B of the Criminal Procedure Act does not require a formal cross-appeal by the State in such circumstances; the issue of sentence is already before the appellate court, and the State's notice in its Heads of Argument sufficed to alert the applicant to the risk of an increased sentence. The applicant was adequately notified and had the opportunity to argue against an increase, and no ir…

Source excerpt

  • Criminal Appeal Procedure
  • Cross Appeal Requirements
  • Fair Trial Rights
  • Minimum Sentencing Legislation
  • Notice Of Increased Sentence
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.