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
Vilakazi v Avragystix (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR114/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 325 (1 August 2025)
Review of a CCMA award dismissed. The Labour Court held the applicant bore the onus in an unfair suspension dispute and found no reviewable irregularity or bias.
Raphael v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (2025/051303) [2025] ZAWCHC 200 (9 May 2025)
The applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, having not set out the circumstances rendering the matter urgent or reasons why substantial redress could not be obtained at a hearing in due course. On the merits, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict, as she did not demonstrate a prima facie right to relief or irreparable harm. The refusal of discharge by the PCC was based on its finding of a prima facie case, and the applicant's argument that she should not be compelled to proceed with her defence is not…
Source excerpt
South African Legal Practice Council v Louw (2023/068293) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1114; [2025] 1 All SA 744 (GJ) (1 November 2024)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a striking-off matter involving attorneys, because the papers did not contain enough facts for a full and fair inquiry.
South African Legal Practical Council v Louw and Others (2023/068293) [2024] ZAGPJHC 959; 2025 (1) SA 447 (GJ) (30 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed the LPC’s striking-off application, holding that a disciplinary inquiry was needed because the facts and individual culpability were not adequately established.
Nene v National Lotteries Commission and Others (2024/024114) [2024] ZAGPJHC 385; (2024) 45 ILJ 1334 (GJ) (22 April 2024)
The court struck an urgent interdict application from the roll and ordered punitive costs, finding no legally recognisable case or proper basis for urgency.
South African Legal Practice Council v Du Toit [2023] ZAFSHC 155 (2 May 2023)
The High Court issued a rule nisi suspending an attorney pending disciplinary proceedings after allegations of fraud involving deceased estates and poor trust-account control.
Heidema v Professional Conduct Committee for Optometry and Dispensing Opticians of the Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (87745/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 985 (15 December 2022)
The court found that the Committee's refusal to stay the disciplinary inquiry was neither arbitrary, irrational, nor unreasonable. The delay, while substantial, was explained by systemic backlogs and logistical challenges within the HPCSA, and the applicant contributed to the delay by failing to respond and insisting on particulars not required at the preliminary stage. The applicant suffered no significant prejudice, as he had access to all relevant documents and witness statements, and the destruction of records was not justified given his knowledge of the ongoing complaint. The Committee p…
Source excerpt
Els v Health Professionals Council of SA and Others (5845/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 106 (30 May 2022)
The applicant failed to establish a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm resulting from the delay and loss of evidence in the disciplinary inquiry. The missing appendix to the expert report did not disable the professional conduct committee from fairly adjudicating the charges, and any prejudice could be addressed through internal appeal or statutory review. The applicant acquiesced in the delay, and her additional grounds—reputational harm, legal costs, and stress—did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying interim relief. The prospects of success in her intended applic…
Source excerpt
Pahlanga v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd and Others (C564/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 48; [2021] 11 BLLR 1129 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 212 (LC) (9 July 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed a review of an unfair dismissal award, holding that the employer was not required to investigate incapacity absent clear evidence of it.
Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Basson and Others (554/2019) [2020] ZASCA 64; 2021 (1) SA 341 (SCA) (12 June 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the debarment of Mr Basson was an administrative action subject to review under PAJA. The court found that the disciplinary inquiry established facts directly relevant to Mr Basson's honesty and integrity, which are central to the fit and proper requirements under the FAIS Act. The notices sent to Mr Basson provided adequate warning of the impending debarment and invited him to make representations, which he did through his attorneys. The court rejected the argument that a separate debarment inquiry was required, holding that the disciplinary process suff…
Source excerpt
Explore more
