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
Vorster and Another v Bala (Leave to Appeal) (24463/2013) [2025] ZAGPJHC 776 (12 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to grant leave.
Barnard and Another v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (9952/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 705 (14 July 2025)
The High Court held the State liable after a Working for Water herbicide treatment contaminated irrigation water and damaged crops on a Limpopo farm.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Troskie Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/012036) [2025] ZAGPJHC 664 (8 July 2025)
The court found that the applicant and first respondent entered into seven instalment sale agreements, which the first respondent breached by failing to make payments. The respondent’s defence that the applicant’s omission of VAT numbers and addresses caused SARS to reject VAT claims, thereby making performance impossible, was rejected. The agreements did not make payment conditional on VAT refunds, and the respondent was responsible for ensuring correct information was included. The court held that any impossibility was subjective and self-created, not objective. Payments were made for a sub…
Source excerpt
Mdlalose v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/5898) [2025] ZAGPJHC 637 (25 June 2025)
The High Court held PRASA liable after finding that Joseph Mdlalose was pushed from a moving train with open doors and that its defences failed.
Moose v W Van Der Schyff Attorneys (15982/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 266 (23 June 2025)
The High Court held an attorney liable for allowing a Road Accident Fund claim to prescribe after being mandated to pursue it timeously.
Ross and Another v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (10029/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 623 (20 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Ross applicants’ leave-to-appeal and condonation applications, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no reasonable prospects of success.
Mgiba v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (49615/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 607 (17 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a commuter’s claim for a train-station injury, finding the plaintiff had not proved his version on a balance of probabilities.
Williams v Beyerskloof Wine Bar (Pty) Ltd (16561/20) [2025] ZAWCHC 240 (29 May 2025)
The High Court held a restaurant liable after a diner swallowed a needle-like object in food, applying res ipsa loquitur and finding negligence and causation.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Troskie Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/012036) [2025] ZAGPJHC 504 (26 May 2025)
The court found that the Applicant and First Respondent entered into seven instalment sale agreements, which the First Respondent breached by failing to make payments. The Respondent’s defence, based on alleged omissions of VAT numbers and addresses by the Applicant, was rejected. The agreements did not contain terms making payment contingent on VAT refunds, nor did they require the Applicant to ensure VAT compliance for the Respondent’s benefit. The Respondent was responsible for ensuring its own VAT information was correctly included. The court held that any impossibility to perform was sub…
Source excerpt
Ramotshekisi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (7815/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 450 (6 May 2025)
The plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings was refused because it was brought too late in the proceedings, with no reasonable explanation for the delay, and was not made in good faith. The contradiction between 'pushed' and 'pulled' was not a material fact affecting the cause of action, which was based on the defendant's alleged negligence in operating the train with open doors. The defendant's application for absolution from the instance was refused because the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligence; the contradiction in his evidence was not material to the pleade…
Source excerpt
Explore more
