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
2 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 [2025] ZAGPJHC 613

#Unitebehind v Buthelezi and Others (2022/034768)

#Unitebehind v Buthelezi and Others (2022/034768) [2025] ZAGPJHC 613 (17 June 2025)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2022/034768
Judge
X Stylianou

The court found that #UniteBehind satisfied all criteria for intervention as a respondent in the review application. It is a bona fide public interest organisation with a track record of advocacy and litigation against corruption and maladministration at PRASA. Its objectives are aligned with upholding constitutional norms, and the review application concerns issues of profound constitutional and public importance. #UniteBehind has demonstrated prior involvement in PRASA-related disputes, including assisting the Commission and participating in related litigation. The court rejected the respon…

Source excerpt

  • Standing In Constitutional Matters
  • Intervention As Party
  • State Capture Review
  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Prasa Governance
  • Corruption And Maladministration
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2025] ZAGPPHC 507

Coetzer and Others v Office of the Chief Justice (043089/2023)

Coetzer and Others v Office of the Chief Justice (043089/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 507 (13 May 2025)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
043089/2023
Judge
Millar

The applicants failed to establish a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the self-review proceedings, as they do not oppose the review or the setting aside of the tender and have no ongoing legal interest in the order sought. Their apprehension regarding possible adverse findings or reasoning by the court does not justify intervention, as established in National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma. The right to dignity is not implicated, as the review court will determine the relevance and veracity of any adverse statements based on the record. Furthermore, the applicants' fo…

Source excerpt

  • Intervention As Party
  • Self Review Of Tender
  • Direct And Substantial Interest
  • Scandalous And Vexatious Pleadings
  • Punitive Costs
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.