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 [2023] ZAGPJHC 522

Cronje and Others v Nash and Others (43585/2019)

Cronje and Others v Nash and Others (43585/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 522 (19 May 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
43585/2019
Judge
Vally

The court found that only two applicants, Mr Isaiah Masitha and Mrs Elena Forno-Nash, had clearly and voluntarily joined the intervention application. The remaining thirty-two applicants' participation was doubtful, with evidence that some were unaware of their inclusion or had accepted offers to exit the Fund. The court accepted the curators' contention that Mr Nash was the driving force behind the litigation but held that this was not a ground to deny intervention to those with a legitimate interest. The application by the thirty-two was dismissed, but leave was granted to Mrs Forno-Nash to…

Source excerpt

  • Intervention Application
  • Pension Fund Curatorship
  • Legal Standing
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Discovery Procedure
  • Defined Contribution Vs Defined Benefit
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2016] ZAGPPHC 91

Ginindza and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (1538/2015)

Ginindza and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (1538/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 91 (19 February 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
1538/2015
Judge
M J Teffo

The court found that the applicants' claims were barred by res judicata, as the same issues had been previously adjudicated in the High Court and Constitutional Court, both of which dismissed the applicants' claims. The applicants were members of a defined contribution fund, not a defined benefit fund, and the state had no obligation to make contributions or cover any shortfall. The differentiation between pension funds did not amount to unfair discrimination under the Equality Act. The court also noted that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in institutin…

Source excerpt

  • Unfair Discrimination
  • Defined Contribution Vs Defined Benefit
  • Res Judicata
  • Pension Fund Rights
  • Equality Act Application
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.