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
M.M.S v H.K (2023/117058) [2025] ZAGPJHC 387 (17 April 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused because material factual disputes prevented final interdictory relief, and the alleged non-disclosure did not change the result.
Evrigard (Pty) Ltd and Another v Select PPE (Pty) Ltd (44317/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 374; 2023 BIP 13 (GJ) (25 April 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for declaratory and interdictory relief over alleged defamatory statements and injurious falsehoods in an IP dispute.
Universal Church Of The Kingdom Of God v Bongani (21/32566) [2022] ZAGPJHC 518 (3 August 2022)
The High Court granted a final interdict restraining Facebook defamation against the Universal Church after rejecting truth, public interest, and fair comment defences.
South African Medical Association v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Another (9258/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 364 (28 May 2021)
The High Court granted an urgent final interdict preventing false statements and interference with SAMA’s business and membership renewal process.
Nativa (Pty) Limited v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited (1289/2018) [2020] ZASCA 11; 2020 (5) SA 452 (SCA); 2020 BIP 562 (SCA) (19 March 2020)
The SCA upheld an interim interdict against false disparagement in a television advertisement, finding the respondent’s claims about glucosamine and chondroitin were untrue.
Smith v Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another (1003/2018) [2019] ZASCA 123 (26 September 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to prove injurious falsehood and set aside an interdict over a website statement about organic certification.
Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (20117/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 69 (11 June 2018)
The court found that the statement published by the first respondent, that Mountain Oaks Winery was 'no longer organic', was factually incorrect and constituted a misrepresentation. The applicants had provided sufficient evidence of organic certification for their wines up to the 2010 vintage, and EU regulations did not render such wines non-organic after the regulatory change in 2012. The publication of the statement was injurious to the applicants' reputation and business interests, amounting to unlawful competition. The requirements for a final interdict were met: a clear right existed, in…
Source excerpt
Environ Skin Care (Pty) Ltd v National Pride Trading 31 CC t/a Touch of Skincare And Concept Skincare and Another (21137/14) [2016] ZAWCHC 104 (22 August 2016)
The High Court refused late supplementary evidence and dismissed a final interdict application over alleged trade mark, passing-off and injurious falsehood claims.
B Braun Medical (Pty) Limited v Fresenus Kabi South Africa (Pty) Ltd (1481/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 27; 2008 BIP 389 (SE) (15 April 2008)
The High Court refused an urgent interdict against comparative statements about two medical products, finding the applicant had not shown falsity or unlawful competition.
Knox D'Arcy Ltd. and Others v Jamieson and Others (283/95) [1996] ZASCA 58; 1996 (4) SA 348 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 669 (A); (29 May 1996)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal of the interim interdict was appealable as it was a final order disposing of substantial relief. However, on the merits, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for damages arising from unlawful competition, as the evidence did not support their claims regarding the diversion of customer connections or breach of fiduciary duties. The allegations of asset dissipation were based on unreliable hearsay and contradicted by objective facts, and the respondents' corporate structuring was for bona fide commercial reasons. The requirement…
Source excerpt
Explore more
