South Africa Case Law

Nefale v Minister of Police (82307/2018)

Nefale v Minister of Police (82307/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 441 (29 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82307/2018

Judge

Swanepoel

The plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and detained by police officers who targeted him solely because of his Rastafarian religious appearance. The arresting officers fabricated an offence and failed to inform the plaintiff of the reason for his arrest or his rights. The plaintiff endured humiliation, trauma, and degrading treatment during his detention, including assault and exposure to unsanitary conditions. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and led no evidence to challenge the plaintiff's version. The quantum of damages awarded reflects the s…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Damages Quantum
• Human Dignity
• Religious Discrimination
• Costs Award

Muofhe v Dintwe (61891/21)

Muofhe v Dintwe (61891/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 396 (12 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61891/21

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that the relief sought by the applicant, namely constitutional damages and a declaratory order for alleged breach of statutory duties and violation of constitutional rights, could not be granted in motion proceedings due to material disputes of fact. The respondent's denial of any breach or violation was substantial and could not be resolved on the papers. The applicant should have foreseen the dispute and proceeded by way of action. The court found that, in line with established precedent, compensatory remedies for unliquidated damages require oral evidence or trial, and the a…

Source excerpt

• Constitutional Damages
• Human Dignity
• Right To Privacy
• Dispute Of Facts
• Motion Proceedings
• Declaratory Relief

Mashaba v Minister of Police (4574/2021)

Mashaba v Minister of Police (4574/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 9 (9 January 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4574/2021

Judge

Mazibuko

The court found that the plaintiff was assaulted by SAPS members, kept handcuffed for several hours, denied access to the toilet, and forced to urinate himself, constituting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The SAPS's conduct was not justified by any resistance to arrest or threat posed by the plaintiff. The police breached their constitutional duties and violated the plaintiff's rights to dignity and freedom from cruel treatment. The court held that general damages were the appropriate relief, as the facts did not justify a separate award of constitutional damages. The defendant is vi…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Assault By Police
• Constitutional Damages
• Human Dignity
• Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment
• Vicarious Liability

Van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour (2022-017842)

Van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour (2022-017842) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1213; [2024] 1 BLLR 93 (GJ); (2024) 45 ILJ 194 (GJ); 2024 (1) SA 545 (GJ) (25 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-017842

Judge

Sutherland DJP

The court found that the BCEA's parental leave provisions unfairly discriminate between mothers and fathers, and between different categories of parents (birth, adoptive, commissioning), in violation of sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. The differentiation is not justified by physiological differences except for the period of recovery after childbirth, and the statutory scheme fails to recognise egalitarian family structures and equal caregiving roles. The restriction of adoption leave to children under two years is irrational. The statutory framework is inconsistent with the objectives…

Source excerpt

• Equality Clause
• Parental Leave
• Unfair Discrimination
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Unemployment Insurance Fund
• Human Dignity

Van Tonder v Sibanye Stillwater Ltd and Others (JR 651/20)

Van Tonder v Sibanye Stillwater Ltd and Others (JR 651/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 265 (19 September 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 651/20

Judge

Mahosi

The Labour Court dismissed a review of a dismissal award, finding that the alleged fishpond discipline was not a valid custom and that dismissal was fair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Custom In Workplace
• Disciplinary Code
• Human Dignity
• Condonation

Mkalipi v Minister of Labour and Employment NO and Another (JS 257/2022)

Mkalipi v Minister of Labour and Employment NO and Another (JS 257/2022) [2023] ZALCJHB 251 (25 August 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 257/2022

Judge

M Jolwana

The court held that the applicant's pleadings, if accepted as true, disclose a cause of action for unfair discrimination on an arbitrary ground under section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act. The applicant alleges that the differential treatment between himself and Mr Ndebele, with no justifiable operational or employment reason, constitutes an affront to his human dignity. The court found that the applicant has pleaded facts that, if proved, would amount to unfair discrimination analogous to the listed grounds, as required by binding authority. The court emphasized that at the pleading stag…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Arbitrary Ground
• Human Dignity
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Pleading Exception

Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Thwala and Others (LCC 160/2017B)

Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Thwala and Others (LCC 160/2017B) [2023] ZALCC 23 (30 June 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 160/2017B

Judge

Flatela

The court found that while the respondents constructed a new dwelling without the applicant's consent and failed to meaningfully engage, their actions were not shown to be malicious or in wilful disregard of the court's authority. The respondents acted under a bona fide belief, supported by Judge Ncube's observations, that they were entitled to improve their living conditions to meet standards of human dignity. The applicant conceded that improvements to existing dwellings could be made without consent if meaningful engagement occurred, but failed to demonstrate that the respondents' conduct…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Adequate Housing
• Human Dignity
• Meaningful Engagement
• Res Judicata

Lekala and Another v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Community Safety and Transport Management and Another (1037/2017)

Lekala and Another v Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Community Safety and Transport Management and Another (1037/2017) [2023] ZANWHC 64 (25 May 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1037/2017

Judge

K Mongale

The court found that the first plaintiff was unlawfully detained for 17 hours in degrading and inhumane conditions, including overcrowding, lack of bedding, poor sanitation, and exposure to smoking. The deprivation of liberty violated his constitutional rights to freedom of movement and human dignity. The court considered comparable awards, the plaintiff's standing as an educator, the humiliation suffered, and the reduction of leave days. The court determined that R20,000 is a fair and reasonable amount for compensation. Although the damages fall within the Magistrates' Court jurisdiction, th…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Damages Assessment
• Constitutional Rights Violation
• Personal Liberty
• Human Dignity

Mbata v Minister of Police (CIV APP MG 20/22)

Mbata v Minister of Police (CIV APP MG 20/22) [2023] ZANWHC 127 (12 April 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP MG 20/22

Judges

Hendricks JP, Petersen J

Appeal dismissed against a R100,000 award for unlawful arrest and 11 days’ detention. The court found no misdirection in the magistrate’s assessment of quantum.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Quantum Of Damages
• Personal Liberty
• Human Dignity
• Unlawful-arrest

Lebea v Menye and Another (CCT 182/20)

Lebea v Menye and Another (CCT 182/20) [2022] ZACC 40; 2023 (3) BCLR 257 (CC) (29 November 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 182/20

Judges

Zondo, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, as a witness who was not a party to the proceedings, did not have a direct and substantial interest in the order made by the Magistrates’ Court. His interest was limited to the adverse credibility finding, which is not sufficient to justify intervention under rule 28(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Rules. The Court reaffirmed that appeals lie only against orders, not against reasons or findings, and that broadening the test for intervention would have far-reaching and undesirable consequences for the administration of justice. The Court declined…

Source excerpt

• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Leave To Intervene
• Human Dignity
• Magistrates Court Rules
• Common Law Development