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
1 court collection
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 [2022] ZASCA 119

Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021)

Minister of Social Development v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others; MEC, Social Development, Eastern Cape & Others v SA Childcare (Pty) Ltd & Others (71/2021) [2022] ZASCA 119 (29 August 2022)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
71/2021
Judges
Ponnan, Plasket, Hughes, Tsoka, Savage

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the High Court misdirected itself by failing to properly consider the version of the Minister and MECs, which was neither far-fetched nor uncreditworthy. The evidence showed that subsidies, excluding the nutrition component, continued to be paid to ECDs during the lockdown, and alternative measures were implemented to meet children's nutritional needs. The disputes of fact raised by the Minister and MECs were genuine and bona fide, and the respondents failed to establish a systemic breach of constitutional obligations. The relief granted by the High Cour…

Source excerpt

  • Bill Of Rights Limitation
  • Early Childhood Development
  • Division Of Revenue Act
  • Structural Interdict
  • Disputes Of Fact On Motion
  • Costs Orders
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2005] ZASCA 24

Export Harness Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Pasdec Automotive Technologies (Pty) Ltd (097/2004)

Export Harness Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Pasdec Automotive Technologies (Pty) Ltd (097/2004) [2005] ZASCA 24 (29 March 2005)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
097/2004
Judges
Mpati, Brand, Cloete, Heher, Maya

The applicant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the second respondent was unable to pay its debts as required for a final liquidation order under section 345(1)(c) of the Companies Act. The founding affidavit did not allege insolvency, and the evidence presented amounted to speculation rather than proof. The respondent's denial of indebtedness was not shown to be so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers. The alternative ground of just and equitable winding-up was also not substantiated, as the applicant's allegations were disputed and no prima facie c…

Source excerpt

  • Company Liquidation
  • Just And Equitable Winding Up
  • Unable To Pay Debts
  • Disputes Of Fact On Motion
  • Onus Of Proof
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.