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
Criminal Law [2023] ZAGPJHC 1402

Lethena and Another v Minister of Police and Another (6107/16)

Lethena and Another v Minister of Police and Another (6107/16) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1402; 2024 (1) SACR 92 (GJ); [2023] 4 All SA 185 (GJ) (16 August 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
6107/16
Judge
Halgryn AJ

The court found that unlawful possession of firearms is included in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the sentencing court may impose imprisonment exceeding six months without the option of a fine. Therefore, arrest without a warrant for this offence is competent. The court held that section 219 only prohibits the use of a confession as evidence against a co-accused at trial, not for arrest purposes, and that police may lawfully arrest an accomplice based on a confession by another. The court rejected the argument that police or prosecutors must investigate every possible defence b…

Source excerpt

  • Unlawful Arrest
  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Firearms Control Act
  • Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
  • Reasonable Suspicion
  • Doctrine Of Precedent
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2022] ZACC 12

Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21)

Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21) [2022] ZACC 12; 2022 (5) BCLR 523 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 123 (CC) (25 March 2022)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 47/21
Judges
Zondo, Madlanga, Madondo, Mhlantla, Majiedt, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court was bound by its prior decision in Smit, which declared section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it delegated plenary legislative power to the Minister. The High Court's failure to apply the Smit precedent was a breach of the doctrine of precedent and the rule of law. However, since the Constitutional Court had already declared the provision invalid, the High Court could not grant the relief sought by the applicants, and the application was correctly dismissed on the merits. The costs ord…

Source excerpt

  • Doctrine Of Precedent
  • Delegation Of Legislative Power
  • Rule Of Law
  • Constitutional Invalidity
  • Costs Order
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2018] ZAFSHC 208

Nyaku v S (A212/2018)

Nyaku v S (A212/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 208; 2020 (2) SACR 102 (FB) (22 November 2018)

Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A212/2018
Judges
Loubser, Opperman

The court held that although the appellant was convicted of multiple-rape and the facts justified a life sentence, the Mahlase-dictum, as binding precedent, precluded sentencing under section 51(1) where not all perpetrators were tried together. The charge was properly amended under section 86 of the CPA, and the appellant was not prejudiced, having been represented and informed of the consequences. The court found that the conviction must be deemed under section 51(2)(b), but, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, confirmed the life sentence as appropriate given the gravity of the offence an…

Source excerpt

  • Minimum Sentencing
  • Multiple Rape
  • Application Of Section 86 Cpa
  • Doctrine Of Precedent
  • Fair Trial Rights
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2010] ZACC 19

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another (CCT 18/10)

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another (CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19; 2011 (2) BCLR 121 (CC) ; 2011 (4) SA 42 (CC) (4 November 2010)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 18/10
Judges
Brand AJ, Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants failed to establish any contravention of title deed restrictions or zoning scheme regulations in the approval of the September 2007 building plans. The objections regarding the setback and height limitations were not supported by the facts, and the boundary wall on Blinkwater Road did not constitute a prohibited structure. The attempt to introduce a new ground of review based on section 47 of the zoning scheme regulations was time-barred under PAJA, as it related to a decision made in February 2005 and was only raised in May 2008. The Court fo…

Source excerpt

  • Building Plan Approval
  • Title Deed Restrictions
  • Zoning Scheme Regulations
  • Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
  • Doctrine Of Precedent
  • Judicial Review Time Limits
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2010] ZAFSHC 3

Free State Provincial Administration v Road Accident Fund (A47/07)

Free State Provincial Administration v Road Accident Fund (A47/07) [2010] ZAFSHC 3 (21 January 2010)

Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A47/07
Judges
CJ Musi, MH Rampai

The Supreme Court of Appeal has definitively interpreted section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act as conferring a statutory right on suppliers to claim costs directly from the Fund, provided the third party is entitled to compensation and the supplier complies with statutory requirements. The magistrate erred by disregarding binding precedent and relying on academic commentary. The supplier's claim is accessory to the third party's entitlement, but not dependent on the third party actually submitting a claim. The purpose of section 17(5) is to prevent misappropriation of compensation and t…

Source excerpt

  • Road Accident Fund Act
  • Statutory Right Of Supplier
  • Doctrine Of Precedent
  • Accessory Claim
  • Costs Orders
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2009] ZASCA 4

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Madhi and Others (543/2007)

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Madhi and Others (543/2007) [2009] ZASCA 4; 2009 (4) SA 153 (SCA); 2009 (7) BCLR 712 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 548 (SCA) (3 March 2009)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
543/2007
Judges
Scott, Cameron, Heher, Jafta, Combrinck

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 7(1) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act requires a local authority to refuse approval of building plans only if it is positively satisfied that the building will probably or in fact cause one of the undesirable outcomes listed in the section, such as derogation of value, disfigurement, or danger. Mere doubt or concern is insufficient to mandate refusal; the authority must act on a positive finding. The court found that the City of Johannesburg properly considered the statutory requirements and the potential impact on n…

Source excerpt

  • Building Regulations
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Delegation Of Powers
  • Derogation Of Property Value
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Doctrine Of Precedent
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.