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
Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (Leave to Appeal) (00001/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 514 (26 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused because the underlying compulsory licence would have expired before any appeal could be heard, and no practical effect would follow.
Ramkistan and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa (D2490/2022;D4744/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 55 (10 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed two consolidated applications against Standard Bank and the FSCA, finding jurisdictional, procedural, and pleading defects, and awarded costs against the applicants.
Pillay and Others v Knoop N.O. and Another (8635/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 861 (3 August 2023)
High Court refused leave to appeal against an eviction order, holding the business rescue practitioner had authority to cancel the lease and the appeal had no reasonable prospects.
Hennig v South Cape Auto (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyundai (NCT/110709/2018/148(1)) [2018] ZANCT 136 (23 October 2018)
The Tribunal upheld an appeal against refusal of leave to refer a consumer complaint, holding that notification and jurisdictional issues required a hearing.
Mosana v Kempster Sedwick (Pty) Ltd t/a CMH Volvo Silver Lakes (NCT /95011/2017/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 93 (27 June 2018)
The Tribunal dismissed a consumer’s direct referral after finding she had standing, but no reasonable prospects of proving defects or poor repairs under the CPA.
L v L (26758/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 895 (7 December 2017)
The High Court dismissed an amendment application in divorce proceedings, finding the proposed enrichment and damages allegations would render the pleading excipiable.
Omega International Associates Limited Partnership and Another v De Witt (45371/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1192 (25 November 2016)
The High Court held that most of the Second Plaintiff’s claims had prescribed because key company officials knew, or should have known, the relevant facts earlier.
Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014) [2015] ZASCA 159; 2016 (1) SA 445 (SCA); [2016] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); [2015] 2 CPLR 335 (SCA) (4 November 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Tribunal lacked the power to make a declaration against Premier Foods because Premier was not cited as a respondent in the complaint referrals and no relief was sought against it. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters properly referred to it, and the absence of citation is fatal to its power to make any order against Premier. The declaration made by the Tribunal is therefore a nullity and does not require formal setting aside before it can be disregarded by a court. Consequently, neither the Tribunal nor its Chairperson can law…
Source excerpt
CJ Digital SMS Marketing CC v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3584/2011/101(1)) [2012] ZANCT 22 (1 October 2012)
The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not follow the prescribed procedures under the Consumer Protection Act prior to issuing the compliance notice. There was no evidence of a completed investigation, and the compliance notice was issued primarily because the Applicant refused to reach a consent agreement, not because prohibited conduct was established. The compliance notice failed to comply with section 100(3) as it did not specify steps to remedy non-compliance but simply ordered a refund. The Tribunal held that ordering a refund via compliance notice exceeded the Respondent's powers,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
