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
G.J.N v M.C (34350/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 329 (24 March 2025)
High Court orders a forensic investigation into children’s best interests, appoints a parenting coordinator, and dismisses the respondent’s counterclaim.
D.P v B and Another (2024/080548) [2024] ZAGPJHC 722 (5 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent review of interim Children's Court orders in a parenting dispute, finding the absence of a record prevented intervention.
Ndhlovu v Department of Health, Northern Cape Province and Another (1023/22;30/22) [2023] ZANCHC 26 (15 June 2023)
The court found that the applicant's request for an interim interdict was rendered moot by the consolidation and simultaneous hearing of the declaratory application. The investigation by IFAS was properly authorised by the department and the National Department of Health, and the extension of its mandate to include Dudula Attorneys was lawful. The applicant was afforded opportunities to respond during the investigation but declined to participate. The department's internal investigation did not usurp the powers of the Legal Practice Council, as it was aimed at uncovering malfeasance affecting…
Source excerpt
Cibane and Another v Premier of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal and Others (7655/2020P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 27; (2023) 44 ILJ 1114 (KZP) (10 March 2023)
The court found that the applicants' suspension was precautionary and did not require prior opportunity for representations. The disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges against the applicants are pending in other forums, and the relief sought in this application is substantially the same as that sought in those proceedings, thus lis pendens applies. The forensic report compiled by Fourth Respondent was not administrative action and is not reviewable under PAJA; it was a contractual investigation for the department. Applicants will have full opportunity to challenge the findings in the d…
Source excerpt
B[....] v B[....] (16606/2015) [2021] ZAGPPHC 383 (18 June 2021)
The court postponed a bid to vary a 2015 child-relocation order, granted condonation, and awaited the Family Advocate’s final report before deciding travel and contact issues.
Mulaudzi v Platinum Health Medical Scheme (6860/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 16 (4 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel pre-plea document disclosure, finding the applicant could plead using information already provided.
RV v YV (20/39012) [2020] ZAGPJHC 406 (10 December 2020)
The High Court granted interim supervised contact between a father and his three-year-old daughter pending divorce proceedings and postponed a counter-application for further investigation.
Social Housing Regulatory Authority v Free State Social Housing Company and Others (1751/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 240 (17 December 2019)
The court found that the First Respondent was factually insolvent and had engaged in maladministration, as evidenced by the forensic audit and other reports. The Board failed in its governance duties, including non-compliance with internal policies, lack of oversight, and improper procurement practices. The Applicant's procedural defect in not obtaining the forensic report prior to the application was condoned by a previous court order, and the court held that substance must prevail over form. The continued mismanagement threatened the state's constitutional mandate to provide housing. The Ap…
Source excerpt
Burger v Strydom and Another (54112/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 471 (19 May 2016)
The High Court confirmed termination of a forensic investigator’s mandate in a children’s welfare dispute and ordered her to hand over all materials to a successor expert.
Mbana and Others v Minister For Higher Education and Training and Others (3359/2014) [2015] ZAECPEHC 27 (16 April 2015)
The court found that the decision to appoint Deloitte & Touche Ltd to conduct an investigation into the affairs of Eastcape Midlands College constituted administrative action under PAJA, as it had the capacity to affect the rights of the applicants, including their employment status and reputation. The respondents failed to identify any empowering provision authorising the Director-General or Minister to appoint such an investigation outside the mechanism provided by section 46(1) of the CET Act. Reliance on Treasury Regulation 8.4.1 and the PFMA was misplaced, as these did not apply to publi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
