South Africa Case Law

Zwane v Zwane and Others (2362/2021)

Zwane v Zwane and Others (2362/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 25 (11 March 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2362/2021

Judge

Pick

The court found that the applicant was customarily married to the deceased in 1972, based on credible affidavits, evidence of lobola negotiations, and the conduct of the parties. The mere denial by the first and second respondents was not sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact. The court held that all three wives had long-term relationships with the deceased, lived in his properties, and bore his children, indicating equal status. The civil marriage to the first respondent was declared null and void, and all three marriages were ordered to be registered and treated equally for success…

Source excerpt

• Recognition Of Customary Marriages Act
• Equality Before The Law
• Succession And Inheritance
• Nullification Of Civil Marriage
• Living Customary Law
• Registration Of Marriages

H v H (44450/22)

H v H (44450/22) [2022] ZAGPJHC 904; [2023] 1 All SA 413 (GJ); 2023 (6) SA 279 (GJ) (30 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44450/22

Judge

Victor

The court found that the applicant, as the financially disadvantaged spouse and primary caregiver, is entitled to a substantial contribution towards legal costs and interim maintenance under Rule 43. The respondent's considerable means and lifestyle were contrasted with the applicant's limited resources and the children's comfort with her. The court emphasised that Rule 43 must be interpreted and applied through the prism of constitutional rights, particularly equality and access to justice, to ensure both parties can litigate on an equal footing. The best interests of the minor children were…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Contribution To Legal Costs
• Parental Responsibilities And Rights
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Equality Before The Law

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18)

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18) [2019] ZACC 46; 2020 (3) BCLR 245 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 469 (CC); 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC) (4 December 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT261/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 154(3) unlawfully failed to protect child victims’ identities and should extend beyond age 18, subject to consent or court order.

• Identity Protection Of Children
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Freedom Of Expression Limitation
• Open Justice
• Equality Before The Law
• Restorative Justice

Herbert N.O. and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (CCT 308/18)

Herbert N.O. and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (CCT 308/18) [2019] ZACC 31; 2019 (11) BCLR 1343 (CC); 2019 (6) SA 231 (CC) (22 August 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 308/18

Judges

Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron

The Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court's declaration that section 1 of the Land Affairs General Amendment Act 61 of 1998 and section 25A of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act 112 of 1991 are inconsistent with section 9(1) of the Constitution to the extent that they exclude section 3 from applying to the entire Republic. The Court found that the differentiation created by these provisions is irrational, perpetuates the discriminatory effects of apartheid, and unjustifiably limits the right to equality before the law. No legitimate government purpose was advanced to justify the…

Source excerpt

• Equality Before The Law
• Land Tenure Reform
• Discriminatory Legislation
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Remedial Orders

S v S and Another (CCT147/18)

S v S and Another (CCT147/18) [2019] ZACC 22; 2019 (8) BCLR 989 (CC); 2019 (6) SA 1 (CC) (27 June 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 147/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 16(3) of the Superior Courts Act validly bars appeals from rule 43 interim orders in divorce matters.

• Interim Maintenance
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Rule 43 Procedure
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Equality Before The Law
• Access To Court

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (Tlhakanye Intervening) (CCT44/18)

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (Tlhakanye Intervening) (CCT44/18) [2019] ZACC 18; 2019 (2) SACR 88 (CC); 2019 (7) BCLR 795 (CC) (3 May 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 44/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that parole eligibility is a component of punishment for constitutional purposes. Sections 136(1) and 73(6)(b)(iv) of the Correctional Services Act create arbitrary and irrational differentiation between inmates based on date of sentencing rather than date of commission of offence, resulting in unequal treatment and retrospective imposition of harsher punishment. This violates section 9(1) and (3) (equality before the law and non-discrimination) and section 35(3)(n) (right to least severe punishment) of the Constitution. The impugned provisions are declared incon…

Source excerpt

• Parole Eligibility
• Equality Before The Law
• Least Severe Punishment
• Retrospective Application
• Correctional Services Act
• Fair Trial Rights

Ali and Others Minister of Home Affairs and Another (15566/2016)

Ali and Others Minister of Home Affairs and Another (15566/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 94; 2018 (1) SA 633 (WCC) (7 September 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15566/2016

Judge

E D Wille

Section 4(3) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 applies to persons who meet its requirements, irrespective of whether they were born before or after 1 January 2013, provided they attained majority after the section came into force. The applicants only became eligible to apply for citizenship after the enactment of section 4(3), and no vested rights are affected. The respondents' refusal to process their applications infringes their constitutional rights to equality and dignity. The court declines to order the direct granting of citizenship, as this would constitute judicial overr…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship By Birth
• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Equality Before The Law
• Human Dignity

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (20781/2014)

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (20781/2014) [2015] ZASCA 206; 2016 (1) SACR 308 (SCA) (4 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20781/2014

Judges

Maya, Petse, Saldulker, Mbha, Van der Merwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not unconstitutional. The differentiation between natural and juristic persons is rationally connected to the legitimate governmental purpose of limiting private prosecutions to cases involving direct infringement of human dignity. The legislative intent is to prevent public bodies or juristic persons from arrogating the functions of the public prosecutor and to confine private prosecutions to exceptional cases where personal interests are directly affected. The exclusion of juristic persons, except where e…

Source excerpt

• Rule Of Law
• Equality Before The Law
• Private Prosecution
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Juristic Persons
• Animal Protection

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14)

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14) [2015] ZACC 28; 2015 (6) SA 494 (CC); 2015 (11) BCLR 1346 (CC) (22 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 188/14

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court dismissed Legal Aid South Africa’s moot appeal over Marikana funding, holding section 34 does not generally require state-funded representation before commissions of inquiry.

• Right Of Access To Courts
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Mootness
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Equality Before The Law
• Rationality Review

Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Medicines Control Council and Others (64056/2014)

Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Medicines Control Council and Others (64056/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 904; 2015 (5) SA 358 (GP) (11 November 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64056/2014

Judge

N Kollapen

The court found that the seizure of the applicants' consignment of e-cigarettes was an act of selective enforcement for which no rational basis existed. Despite the existence of other importers, manufacturers, and retailers of e-cigarettes, only the applicants were targeted, and the respondents failed to provide any objective explanation beyond vague references to capacity constraints. The court held that such selective enforcement, absent a rational connection to a legitimate governmental purpose, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and constituted unlawful admin…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Selective Enforcement
• Interim Interdict
• Equality Before The Law
• Medicines And Related Substances Act