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
0 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
Constitutional law

Arena Holdings (Pty) Limited t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others

The Court held that sections 35(1) and 46 of PAIA, together with sections 67(4) and 69(2) of the TAA, unconstitutionally impose an absolute bar on disclosure of taxpayer information to a requester even where the public-interest override criteria are met. The majority concluded that this absolute insulation from the public-interest override is unreasonable and unjustifiable in terms of section 36, and that a limited reading-in and suspension for 24 months was the appropriate remedy while Parliament cures the defect.

Source excerpt

  • Right of access to information
  • Freedom of expression
  • Privacy
  • Taxpayer confidentiality
  • Public-interest override
  • Constitutional invalidity
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

Reddell and Others v Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Limited and Others

The Court held that trading corporations do not enjoy the section 10 right to human dignity, but they do have a common-law right to reputation. An unqualified claim for general damages in defamation by a trading corporation unjustifiably limits freedom of expression where the speech is part of public discourse on issues of public interest. General damages remain available, but a court has discretion to refuse them in such cases.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Reputation
  • General damages
  • Trading corporations
  • Public discourse on issues of public interest
  • Development of the common law
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

United Democratic Movement and Another v Lebashe Investment Group (PTY) Limited and Others

The Constitutional Court held that the interim interdict was appealable in the interests of justice because its effect on freedom of expression was sufficiently invasive and far-reaching. On the merits, the applicants failed to lay a factual basis for truth and public interest, their publication of unverified defamatory allegations was wrongful, and the respondents established the requisites for interim interdictory relief.

Source excerpt

  • Appealability of interim orders
  • Interim interdicts
  • Freedom of expression
  • Dignity and reputation
  • Public interest defence
  • Interests of justice
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

Economic Freedom Fighters v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another

The Court held that section 18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalises incitement of another to commit 'any offence', because that phrase is overbroad and disproportionately limits protected freedom of expression under section 16(1) when a less restrictive means would be to confine the offence to serious offences. The Court also held that the High Court's invalidation of the sentencing aspect could not stand, because 'liable' does not mean mandatory punishment. The applicants' Trespass Act claim was refused because they did not launch a direc…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Incitement
  • Sentencing
  • Overbreadth
  • Less restrictive means
  • Trespass
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

Moyo and Another v Minister of Police and Others (Right2Know Campaign as Amicus Curiae); Sonti and Another v Minister of Police and Others

Section 1(2) is unconstitutional because it creates a reverse onus that relieves the State of proving all elements of the offence and violates the presumption of innocence, silence, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Section 1(1)(b) is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of Appeal's added qualifications, especially the requirement of imminent harm, cannot be sourced in the text or context of the provision, leaving it overbroad and vague and unjustifiably limiting freedom of expression. Suspension of invalidity was inappropriate, so the declarations operate immediately, with…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Intimidation
  • Presumption of innocence
  • Reverse onus
  • Constitutional invalidity
  • Retrospectivity of invalidity
Read case analysis
Labour law

National Union of Public Service & Allied Workers Union obo Mani and Others v National Lotteries Board

The majority held that the employees' petition demanding that the CEO be removed and their association with the publication of the union letter were not protected as lawful union activities under the Labour Relations Act and therefore did not make the dismissals automatically unfair; however, the Court, by majority, ultimately ordered retrospective reinstatement and costs. Zondo J held the dismissals were automatically unfair, while Dambuza AJ held they were substantively unfair but not automatically unfair.

Source excerpt

  • Dismissal
  • Automatically unfair dismissal
  • Insubordination
  • Trade union activities
  • Conciliation
  • Freedom of expression
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (Justice Alliance of South Africa and Section 16 as Amici Curiae)

Section 16(2)(a) is unconstitutional because it imposes an administrative prior restraint scheme on protected expression and does so on vague and overbroad criteria where less restrictive means exist; the exclusion of magazines from the newspaper exemption is irrational; and section 24A(2) is constitutionally invalid to the extent that it is made applicable to section 16(1), warranting severance and reading-in.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Prior restraint
  • Publication classification
  • Equality
  • Vagueness and overbreadth
  • Constitutional invalidity
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

The Citizen (1978) (Pty) Ltd and Others v McBride

The Court held that amnesty under section 20(10) does not make it false to describe Mr McBride as having committed murder or to discuss those historical acts in public debate, because the provision expunges the conviction and its legal consequences but not the underlying historical facts. Most of the Citizen's criticism of Mr McBride was therefore capable of amounting to protected comment on a matter of public interest. However, the separate allegation that he lacked contrition was false and unsupported by the stated facts, so liability and damages were confined to that statement. Leave to ap…

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Human dignity
  • Fair comment
  • Amnesty under the promotion of national unity and reconciliation act
  • Truth and reconciliation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others

The majority held that, although the matter raised constitutional issues and leave to appeal should be granted, the Supreme Court of Appeal did not act judicially or commit a demonstrable blunder in refusing live sound broadcasting. Its approach sufficiently accommodated open justice and fair trial concerns, and the risks it identified to fairness and to the pending Zuma trial justified interference only minimally. The appeal was therefore dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant in favour of the second to twelfth respondents.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of expression
  • Open justice
  • Fair trial rights
  • Broadcasting of court proceedings
  • Section 173 powers of court
  • Appellate procedure
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others

The Court held that the definition of child pornography in section 1, read with section 27(1) of the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996, is sufficiently clear and constitutionally valid. Properly interpreted, the provision targets explicit depictions of child sexual conduct, displayed genitals, participation in sexual conduct, or assisting another to engage in sexual conduct, viewed objectively and in context from the perspective of a reasonable viewer. Although section 27(1) limits freedom of expression and privacy, those limitations are reasonable and justifiable because they serve the i…

Source excerpt

  • Child pornography
  • Freedom of expression
  • Right to privacy
  • Equality
  • Limitation of rights
  • Statutory interpretation
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.