South Africa Case Law

Motjamela v George Local Municipality.

The Court held that it had constitutional jurisdiction because both the vexatious litigant order and the unsolicited mental health assessment order implicated rights under sections 10, 12, 14 and 34 of the Constitution. It found that the High Court’s vexatious litigant order was too broad because it extended beyond the evidence and beyond the relief sought, and therefore had to be replaced with a narrower order limited to litigation concerning the applicant’s terminated Expanded Public Works Programme employment contracts. It further held that the mental health assessment order was unsustaina…

Source excerpt

• Vexatious litigant order
• Mental health assessment order
• Access to courts
• Dignity
• Privacy
• Freedom and security of the person

Jana Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another

Section 26(1)(a)-(c) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act differentiates on the ground of gender by allowing only women, and not men, equivalent surname-assumption options after marriage. That differentiation serves no legitimate government purpose, unfairly discriminates on the listed ground of gender, and infringes dignity. The limitation is not justifiable under section 36. The declaration of invalidity is therefore confirmed and suspended for 24 months with interim reading-in style relief to avoid continued discrimination while Parliament remedies the defect.

Source excerpt

• Equality
• Unfair discrimination
• Dignity
• Surname change after marriage
• Confirmation of constitutional invalidity
• Remedy and suspension of invalidity

Jamangile and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (13659/2020)

Jamangile and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (13659/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 38 (19 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13659/2020

Judge

Kgomongwe, AJ

The High Court held that humiliating searches of two correctional services employees unlawfully infringed their dignity and privacy, and the employer is liable for damages.

• Right To Dignity
• Right To Privacy
• Unlawful Search
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Vicarious Liability
• Separation Of Issues

K.A.B v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (1438/2021)

K.A.B v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (1438/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 288; [2023] 10 BLLR 1098 (FB); (2023) 44 ILJ 2554 (FSB) (21 July 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1438/2021

Judge

Chesiwe

The High Court held that disclosing an employee’s HIV status in a workplace grievance meeting was wrongful defamation and an invasion of privacy, awarding R100,000 in damages.

• Defamation
• Right To Privacy
• Dignity
• Quantification Of Damages
• Publication
• Animus Injurandi

Van Greunen and Another v Govern (5395/2022)

Van Greunen and Another v Govern (5395/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 104 (6 April 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5395/2022

Judge

JP Daffue

The court found that the respondent had repeatedly published serious and unfounded defamatory statements about the applicants, causing ongoing injury to their reputation and business interests. The respondent failed to substantiate her defence of truth or public interest with evidence. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicants had a clear right, the injury was ongoing and reasonably apprehended, and no other satisfactory remedy existed. The court held that while the respondent was entitled to lay complaints with professional bodies and the police, she was not entitled to…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Interdict
• Freedom Of Expression
• Dignity
• Motion Proceedings
• Apology Remedy

Dikome v Minister of Police (CA28/2022)

Dikome v Minister of Police (CA28/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 15 (7 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA28/2022

Judges

M Gwala, N G Beshe

Appeal against an inadequate damages award for unlawful arrest and detention. The High Court increased the general damages from R10,000 to R30,000.

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Quantum Of General Damages
• Deprivation Of Liberty
• Dignity Invasion
• Rule 34 Settlement Offer
• Unlawful-arrest-and-detention

Hobkirk v Bricker and Another (6972/2022)

Hobkirk v Bricker and Another (6972/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 68 (23 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6972/2022

Judge

Mazibuko

The court found that the applicant had disclosed all material facts relevant to her complaint, even if certain documents were not attached, and that the non-disclosure was not material or critical. The applicant established clear rights to dignity, privacy, reputation, and professional practice, which the respondents infringed through harassment and defamatory conduct, including sending an email to her employer. The court determined that no adequate alternative remedy was available and that the respondents would suffer no prejudice from the final interdict. The interim order was confirmed as…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Harassment
• Right To Privacy
• Dignity
• Urgent Ex Parte Application

Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021)

Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021) [2023] ZASCA 1 (13 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

88/2021

Judges

Makgoka, Nicholls, Hughes, Goosen, Salie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that interviewing the respondent in a private changing room was not objectively wrongful and did not prove an intent to injure dignity.

• Actio Iniuriarum
• Dignity Infringement
• Wrongfulness
• Intention
• Solatium
• Delict

Rossouw v Mogorotsi and Another (HCA30/2019)

Rossouw v Mogorotsi and Another (HCA30/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 42 (10 August 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCA30/2019

Judges

Kganyago, Muller

The High Court dismissed an appeal in a malicious prosecution case, holding that the respondents had a reasonable basis to complain after an altercation and alleged racial insult.

• Malicious Prosecution
• Crimen Injuria
• Racial Insult
• Reasonable And Probable Cause
• Dignity
• Assault

V.J.V and Another v Minister of Social Development and Another (27706/2021)

V.J.V and Another v Minister of Social Development and Another (27706/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 114 (22 February 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27706/2021

Judge

C Van Veenenendaal

The High Court held that section 40 of the Children's Act unjustifiably excluded permanent life partners from automatic parental recognition in artificial fertilisation cases.

• Children's Act
• Artificial Fertilisation
• Permanent Life Partnership
• Parental Responsibilities
• Equality And Dignity
• Reading In Remedy