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
Nkwali v Transnet National Ports Authority and Others (C10/2020) [2025] ZALCCT 52 (9 July 2025)
Review of an arbitration award upholding dismissal for procurement, safety, PFMA, and ethics breaches was dismissed as the court found the process fair and the sanction reasonable.
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Land and Environmental Affairs v Martin N.O. (JR1275/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 185 (8 May 2025)
Labour Court partially upheld a review of an arbitration award, confirmed the dismissal findings on charge 1, and remitted charge 2 for fresh determination.
Ibex Investment Holdings Limited and Others v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2024/085397) [2025] ZAGPPHC 351 (23 April 2025)
The court found that the SARB failed to provide sufficient factual or evidentiary basis for its claim that the permission for Payment 4 under the 0443 Approval was granted without authority. The SARB's reliance on internal signing limits was not supported by affidavits from relevant officials or documentary evidence, and the delegation of authority permitted the Divisional Head to grant such approvals. The blocking order over R200 million in the SAHPL account was issued without any substantiated suspicion or reasons, and the SARB did not meet the heightened standards required of organs of sta…
Source excerpt
Jansen v North West Department of Education and Others (2025/032845) [2025] ZALCJHB 158 (17 April 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency in her application. Although she was informed on 20 January 2025 that her retirement withdrawal was refused, she delayed filing the application until 10 March 2025 and instead pursued further correspondence, which undermined her claim of urgency. The court held that urgency must not be self-created and that applicants must act promptly when their rights are affected. The applicant's reliance on constitutional principles and potential financial hardship did not suffice to establish urgency, as she did not act with the req…
Source excerpt
Government Employee Pension Fund v Gijima Holdings Pty Ltd (7435/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 112 (31 January 2025)
The court held that the pension fund’s attorneys were duly authorised through a chain of delegation and dismissed the respondent’s Rule 35(12) discovery challenge.
Bloemfontein South High School Governing Body v MEC: Free State Department of Education and Others (2056/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 383 (29 November 2024)
A school governing body sought to compel appointment of its recommended deputy principal candidate, but the court held a final delegated decision had already been taken and dismissed the application with costs.
Mogale and Another v National Health Laboratory Services (JS958/2019) [2024] ZALCJHB 362 (13 September 2024)
The Labour Court dismissed unfair dismissal claims by NHLS’s former CEO and CFO, found breaches of contract, and awarded proven damages to NHLS.
Eldocrete (Pty) Ltd v Direlanang Construction and Project CC and Another (M630/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 211 (15 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed Eldocrete’s application because it failed to prove valid municipal approval and authority for a cession agreement binding the municipality.
Liberty Group Limited and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipility and Others (2023/024680) [2024] ZAGPJHC 153 (19 February 2024)
The court dismissed a review of Johannesburg’s decision to build a Sandton BRT terminal, finding material compliance with notice requirements and no proven expropriation.
South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited and Another v Former Chief Operating Officer: Motsoeneng and Others (GP01/2021) [2022] ZAST 23 (18 October 2022)
The Tribunal found that the SABC had no policy or budget authorising the payments to music legends, and the decisions were made without proper authority, in breach of statutory and internal governance requirements. The identification of beneficiaries was arbitrary, and SABC funds were used unlawfully. The respondents, as former executives, failed to comply with their duties under the Constitution, PFMA, and SABC policies. However, the claim to recover the payments was found to have prescribed, as the SABC acquired knowledge of the debt in August/September 2017 and the application was only bro…
Source excerpt
Explore more
