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
4 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
Constitutional Law [2020] ZAGPPHC 802

Trustees for the time being of the Burmilla Trust v Van Zyl and Others (32980/19)

Trustees for the time being of the Burmilla Trust v Van Zyl and Others (32980/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 802; [2021] 1 All SA 578 (GP) (4 November 2020)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
32980/19
Judge
Tuchten

The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action for constitutional damages against the defendants. Swissborough, as a Lesotho company, had no constitutional rights enforceable against South Africa, and the cession of its claims to Burmilla did not confer such rights. The South African government owes no duty to foreign corporate nationals for acts performed outside its borders, and payment of monetary compensation to non-nationals for such acts is not required by morality, policy, or the legal convictions of the South African community. The claims fo…

Source excerpt

  • Constitutional Damages
  • Access To Court
  • International Tribunal Jurisdiction
  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Expropriation
  • Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against State
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2011] ZASCA 65

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Von Abo (283/10)

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Von Abo (283/10) [2011] ZASCA 65; (2011 (5) SA 262 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 261 (SCA) (4 April 2011)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
283/10
Judges
Mpati, Cloete, Snyders, Theron, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court's orders compelling the government to provide diplomatic protection and pay damages for losses caused by the Zimbabwean government were legally untenable. Diplomatic protection is a matter of executive discretion, and while citizens have a right to request such protection and to have their requests considered rationally and in good faith, there is no constitutional obligation on the government to provide a particular form of protection or to secure restitution from a foreign state. The orders violated the separation of powers by prescribing…

Source excerpt

  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Separation Of Powers
  • Appropriate Relief
  • Rationality Review
  • Structural Interdict
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2010] ZAGPPHC 4

Von Abo v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (3106/07)

Von Abo v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (3106/07) [2010] ZAGPPHC 4; 2010 (3) SA 269 (GNP) ; 2010 (7) BCLR 712 (GNP) (5 February 2010)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
3106/07
Judge
Prinsloo

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the supervisory orders to provide diplomatic protection to the applicant. The respondents did not file personal affidavits as required, nor did they demonstrate any meaningful or effective diplomatic intervention. The report submitted was inadmissible hearsay and did not satisfy the requirements of the court's orders. The respondents' conduct amounted to a dereliction of duty and bordered on contempt of court. The applicant's constitutional right to diplomatic protection was violated, and no alternative remedy was available. In line w…

Source excerpt

  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Constitutional Damages
  • Failure To Comply With Court Order
  • Section 172 Confirmation
  • Effective Remedy
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZACC 15

Von Abo v President of the Republic of South Africa (CCT 67/08)

Von Abo v President of the Republic of South Africa (CCT 67/08) [2009] ZACC 15; 2009 (10) BCLR 1052 (CC) ; 2009 (5) SA 345 (CC) (5 June 2009)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 67/08
Judges
Moseneke DCJ, Langa CJ, Cameron J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court order declaring the failure to provide diplomatic protection unconstitutional does not concern conduct of the President within the meaning of section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution. The responsibility for diplomatic protection lies with the government and the relevant Cabinet Minister, not the President personally. The High Court order did not specify conduct attributable to the President, but rather referred to the respondents collectively. Therefore, the application for confirmation was misconceived and the order is not subject to confirmatio…

Source excerpt

  • Confirmation Of High Court Orders
  • Conduct Of The President
  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Separation Of Powers
Read case analysis
Public International Law [2007] ZASCA 109

Van Zyl and Others v Government of Republic of South Africa and Others (170/06)

Van Zyl and Others v Government of Republic of South Africa and Others (170/06) [2007] ZASCA 109; [2007] SCA 109 (RSA); [2008] 1 All SA 102 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 294 (SCA) (20 September 2007)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
170/06
Judges
Harms, Heher, Cachalia, Hurt, Mhlantla

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that South African law does not confer a right to diplomatic protection on nationals, especially not a right to a particular form of protection. The Government's duty is limited to considering requests for diplomatic protection rationally and in good faith. In this case, the Government received the appellants' request, considered it properly, and declined to act for rational policy reasons. The appellants failed to establish any enforceable right to diplomatic protection under South African or international law. The corporate appellants and trusts did not qual…

Source excerpt

  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Expropriation Without Compensation
  • Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
  • Nationality Rule
  • International Delict
  • Judicial Review
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2005] ZAGPHC 70

Van Zyl and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20320/02)

Van Zyl and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (20320/02) [2005] ZAGPHC 70; [2005] 4 All SA 96 (T); 2005 (11) BCLR 1106 (T) (20 July 2005)

Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
20320/02
Judge
E M Patel

The court held that diplomatic protection is a discretionary right of the State under international law and not an enforceable right of individuals or companies. The applicants, being companies incorporated in Lesotho, are not South African nationals for purposes of diplomatic protection, and their shareholders do not acquire such rights by virtue of shareholding. The applicants failed to exhaust local remedies in Lesotho, and no international delict was established. The decisions of the respondents refusing diplomatic protection were informed by policy considerations and were neither arbitra…

Source excerpt

  • Diplomatic Protection
  • Review Of Executive Action
  • Expropriation Without Compensation
  • Legitimate Expectation
  • Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
  • International Minimum Standard
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2005] ZAGPHC 266

Roothman v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (29087/04)

Roothman v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (29087/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 266; [2005] 3 All SA 600 (T) (9 June 2005)

Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
29087/04
Judge
C Botha

The court held that the South African government is not obliged to assist a citizen in enforcing a civil judgment against a foreign state beyond providing the statutory and procedural mechanisms for enforcement. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents have a duty to exert diplomatic pressure or take extra-judicial steps to ensure compliance with the judgment. The inability to recover the full judgment amount is a risk inherent in litigation against foreign defendants, and does not constitute a violation of the applicant's constitutional rights. The relief sought was found to…

Source excerpt

  • Mandamus
  • Enforcement Of Judgments
  • Rule Of Law
  • Foreign State Immunity
  • Access To Court
  • Diplomatic Protection
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.