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
3 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
Civil Procedure [2023] ZAWCHC 109

Modack v Minister of Police and Others (5392/2021)

Modack v Minister of Police and Others (5392/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 109 (8 May 2023)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
5392/2021
Judge
P. S. Van Zyl

The applicant failed to establish locus standi to seek relief on behalf of unnamed and unidentified family members, employees, and business associates, as he did not allege or prove authority to act for them. The application suffered from fatal non-joinder of necessary parties with a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. The relief sought was impermissibly vague and ambiguous, lacking clarity and enforceability, and would unduly restrict lawful police conduct. On the merits, the applicant did not demonstrate a clear right, injury, or reasonable apprehension of harm, nor did h…

Source excerpt

  • Final Interdict
  • Locus Standi
  • Non Joinder
  • Vague And Ambiguous Relief
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Police Powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2014] ZAGPPHC 1001

Samotse and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (60113/2014)

Samotse and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (60113/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1001 (23 December 2014)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
60113/2014
Judge
E Bertelsmann

The court found that the deportation of the first applicant to Botswana, where he faced the death penalty, was both unlawful and unconstitutional. This was because the officials of the Department of Home Affairs acted in direct contravention of an order of non-surrender issued by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and an interdict from the court. The conduct infringed the first applicant's constitutional rights to dignity, life, and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were hypothetical, noting repea…

Source excerpt

  • Extradition
  • Death Penalty
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Standing Operating Procedures
  • Condonation
  • Unlawful Deportation
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [1998] ZASCA 23

Premier Province of Mpumalanga and Another v Hoofbestuur van die Vereninging van Bestuursliggame van Staats-Ondersteunde Skole Oos-Transvaal (101/96)

Premier Province of Mpumalanga and Another v Hoofbestuur van die Vereninging van Bestuursliggame van Staats-Ondersteunde Skole Oos-Transvaal (101/96) [1998] ZASCA 23; 1998 (8) BCLR 968 (SCA) (26 March 1998)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
101/96
Judges
Van Heerden, Harms, Scott, Melunsky, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal determined that there was uncertainty regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional issues arising under the Interim Constitution, particularly where the relief sought was based solely on constitutional rights and locus standi was derived from constitutional provisions. The Court acknowledged the risk of conflicting decisions between itself and the Constitutional Court and found it prudent to grant a postponement to allow the appellants to approach the Constitutional Court for clarification. The appeal was postponed sine die, with costs reserved, and the…

Source excerpt

  • Locus Standi Under Interim Constitution
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Jurisdiction Of Appellate Courts
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Best Interests Of Child
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [1990] ZASCA 51

During NO v Boesak and Another (10/89)

During NO v Boesak and Another (10/89) [1990] ZASCA 51; 1990 (3) SA 661 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 347 (A) (23 May 1990)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
10/89
Judges
Joubert, Botha, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Milne

The majority held that the appellant, as the functionary empowered under regulation 10(1)(c), bore the onus to prove that he properly exercised his discretion in prohibiting the concert. The discretion was not objectively justiciable, but the appellant was required to show that his decision was made in good faith, with proper consideration of relevant facts. The information relied upon by the appellant was vague and did not establish a sufficient nexus between the anticipated activities of certain black youths and the necessity to prohibit the concert. The appellant failed to discharge the on…

Source excerpt

  • Onus Of Proof
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Regulation 10 1 C
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Ultra Vires
  • State Of Emergency
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.