South Africa Case Law

Society for the Protection of Our Constitution v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2025-062902)

Society for the Protection of Our Constitution v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2025-062902) [2025] ZAGPPHC 588 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-062902

Judge

S. Potterill

The application was dismissed on multiple grounds. The withdrawal of claims against the foreign states rendered the orders sought obsolete, as the Court cannot make orders against parties not cited. The relief sought involved matters of foreign policy, diplomacy, and military intervention, which fall exclusively within the executive domain and are not justiciable. The applicant failed to establish standing, as no infringement of its own rights or those of an identifiable group was demonstrated, and the alleged harm was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The urgency of the matter was not…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Foreign State Immunity
• Standing
• Urgent Interdict
• Genocide Convention
• Jurisdiction

Malone v Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Another (D5778/2020)

Malone v Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Another (D5778/2020) [2024] ZAKZDHC 3; 2024 (2) SACR 341 (KZD) (26 January 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D5778/2020

Judge

Veerasamy AJ

The court held that section 6 of the Foreign States Immunities Act is not limited to actual physical bodily injury but extends to all injuries personally suffered, including deprivation of liberty, contumelia, and discomfort. The actio iniuriarum encompasses harm to personality interests, and deprivation of liberty implicates corpus, dignitas, and fama. The protection afforded by sovereign immunity cannot insulate alleged wrongful conduct that impairs constitutional rights. The plaintiff's claim for legal costs constitutes compensation for pure economic loss and falls within the ambit of sect…

Source excerpt

• Foreign State Immunity
• Personal Injury
• Unlawful Detention
• Damages
• Extradition
• Constitutional Rights

Pitja v United States of America (JS 528/2022)

Pitja v United States of America (JS 528/2022) [2023] ZALCJHB 152; [2023] 8 BLLR 833 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2294 (LC) (23 May 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 528/2022

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the applicant was employed as a visa assistant at the US consulate, which is part of the US diplomatic mission and a component of the Department of State. His duties placed him squarely within the definition of consular staff under section 5(2)(b) of the Foreign States Immunities Act. As such, the exception to immunity for employment contracts did not apply, and the respondent retained immunity from the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Previous decisions of the Labour Court supported this interpretation, and none of the authorities cited by the applicant undermined this…

Source excerpt

• Foreign State Immunity
• Contracts Of Employment
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Diplomatic And Consular Staff
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act

Ex parte: Balkan Energy Limited and Another; In re: Balkan Energy Limited and Another v Government of the Republic of Ghana (17/18638)

Ex parte: Balkan Energy Limited and Another; In re: Balkan Energy Limited and Another v Government of the Republic of Ghana (17/18638) [2017] ZAGPJHC 197; 2017 (5) SA 428 (GJ) (29 June 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17/18638

Judge

S Kuny

The court held that it has jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the foreign arbitral award under section 2 of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 40 of 1977, provided that property of the respondent is attached within the jurisdiction. The attachment of shares in AngloGold Ashanti Limited, held by the Government of Ghana, is sufficient to found jurisdiction. The Power Purchase Agreement does not fall within the scope of the Protection of Businesses Act, as it concerns the supply of electricity and not raw materials. Clause 24 of the PPA constitutes a waiver of immu…

Source excerpt

• Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Awards
• Attachment To Found Jurisdiction
• Foreign State Immunity
• Edictal Citation
• New York Convention
• Protection Of Businesses Act

Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and Others (657/11)

Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fick and Others (657/11) [2012] ZASCA 122 (20 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

657/11

Judges

Nugent, Van Heerden, Malan, Southwood, Erasmus

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld enforcement in South Africa of a SADC Tribunal costs order against Zimbabwe and dismissed Zimbabwe’s appeal with costs.

• Foreign State Immunity
• Enforcement Of International Tribunal Awards
• Recognition Of Foreign Judgments
• Sadc Protocol
• Land Reform
• Registration Of Foreign Orders

Republic of Zimbabwe v Sheriff Wynberg North and Others (2009/34015)

Republic of Zimbabwe v Sheriff Wynberg North and Others (2009/34015) [2010] ZAGPJHC 118 (22 November 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/34015

Judge

C G Lamont

The court set aside irregular attachments of Zimbabwe’s properties, but held that the Kenilworth property was attachable because it was leased commercially.

• Foreign State Immunity
• Attachment Of Property
• Commercial Purpose Exception
• Writ Of Execution
• Procedural Irregularity
• Foreign-state-immunity

Roothman v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (29087/04)

Roothman v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (29087/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 266; [2005] 3 All SA 600 (T) (9 June 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

29087/04

Judge

C Botha

The court held that the South African government is not obliged to assist a citizen in enforcing a civil judgment against a foreign state beyond providing the statutory and procedural mechanisms for enforcement. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents have a duty to exert diplomatic pressure or take extra-judicial steps to ensure compliance with the judgment. The inability to recover the full judgment amount is a risk inherent in litigation against foreign defendants, and does not constitute a violation of the applicant's constitutional rights. The relief sought was found to…

Source excerpt

• Mandamus
• Enforcement Of Judgments
• Rule Of Law
• Foreign State Immunity
• Access To Court
• Diplomatic Protection