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
Ramela v Cooper N.O and Others (2025/055130) [2025] ZAWCHC 193 (5 May 2025)
Urgent PDA application dismissed: the court held the alleged disclosures were already known, not made in good faith, and did not justify interdicting discipline.
NUMSA obo Mbali v Road Accident Fund and Another (J848/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 541 (30 August 2024)
The Labour Court interdicted an internal disciplinary hearing, finding a prima facie protected disclosure and ordering a section 188A(11) inquiry instead.
Kullman v Moloney and Others (2023/008569) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1290 (10 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed an opposed voluntary surrender application after finding that the applicant failed to prove reliable asset values, advantage to creditors, and good faith.
Baxter v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (DA1/2019) [2020] ZALAC 27; [2020] 10 BLLR 968 (LAC) ; (2020) 41 ILJ 2553 (LAC) (18 May 2020)
The court found that the appellant made disclosures regarding irregularities in recruitment and appointments that constituted protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act. The disclosures were made in good faith, even though partly motivated by personal grievances, as the information disclosed was truthful and indicative of non-compliance with legal obligations. The disciplinary charges against the appellant were largely trivial or unsubstantiated and served as a pretext for retaliation. The dominant reason for the dismissal was the appellant’s protected disclosures, not the alle…
Source excerpt
Larrett v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (EL1139/2013) [2018] ZAECELLC 12; 2019 (3) SA 510 (ECG) (11 December 2018)
Court refused leave to continue a company claim under section 165 of the Companies Act because the proceedings were unauthorised at inception and good faith was not proved.
Alderbaran (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bouwer and Others (19992/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 38; [2018] 3 All SA 71 (WCC); 2018 (5) SA 215 (WCC) (22 March 2018)
The court found that the first resolution to commence business rescue was procedurally defective, lacking a sworn statement and proper notice to affected persons as required by the Companies Act. The timing and conduct of the applicants indicated an abuse of the business rescue process, motivated by a desire to prevent enforcement of a valid judgment rather than genuine financial distress or prospects of rescue. The second resolution was a nullity, as business rescue initiated by the first resolution remained operative until set aside by the court. The court held that it was just and equitabl…
Source excerpt
Mbethe v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Limited (503/2016) [2017] ZASCA 67; 2017 (6) SA 409 (SCA) (30 May 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he acted in good faith in seeking leave to institute a derivative action on behalf of the company. The evidence did not support his assertion that reinstating the Zastrospace contract was in the company's or the local community's interests, nor did it show reasonable grounds for his belief. The court found that the appellant's demands were driven by a collateral or ulterior purpose related to the Zastrospace contract, rather than genuine concern for corporate govern…
Source excerpt
Mercedes Benz Financial Services (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Dunga (9222/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 208; 2011 (1) SA 374 (WCC) (20 September 2010)
The court held that the National Credit Act's debt review termination provisions must be interpreted purposively to avoid arbitrary and unfair results. Section 86(10) must be read with an implied proviso that a credit provider may only terminate a debt review if acting in good faith, consistent with the Act's objective of assisting over-indebted consumers and requiring good faith participation. Section 86(11) must be read to allow either the Magistrate's Court or the High Court hearing enforcement proceedings to order the resumption of debt review, remedying a casus omissus in the statute. On…
Source excerpt
Explore more
