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
Mavudzi and Another v Makamu and Others (2024-00057 ; 2024-028945) [2024] ZAGPJHC 678 (19 July 2024)
The High Court refused permission to sue an acting judge because the applicants did not identify the contemplated civil proceedings or show a justiciable case.
Nomatye v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (118/2020) [2024] ZAECMKHC 47 (30 April 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of delictual liability. The pleadings did not clearly identify which constitutional or statutory right was infringed, nor did they provide a sufficient factual basis for wrongfulness or malice. The refusal of a postponement was a matter of judicial discretion, not a right, and even if the magistrate erred, such conduct was not wrongful or malicious. The evidence did not support an inference of animus iniuriandi. The appeal court's judgment setting aside the conviction was not binding or admissible to prove facts in this civil…
Source excerpt
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v Masia (A13/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 428; 2021 (2) SACR 425 (GP) (28 June 2021)
The High Court held that a magistrate maliciously ordered a maintenance litigant’s detention, making the Minister of Justice vicariously liable; the police appeal succeeded.
Matamela v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (11654/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 151 (13 June 2017)
The High Court dismissed a damages claim for arrest and incarceration, finding no malice or negligence by the magistrate and no recoverable loss.
Tsotetsi v The Honourable Magistrate Delize Smith and Another (23969/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 329 (29 November 2016)
The court held that judicial immunity does not protect magistrates from liability for damages where their conduct is malicious or in bad faith. The Minister of Justice, as the statutory employer of magistrates, may be vicariously liable for such malicious acts performed within the course and scope of employment. The Supreme Court of Appeal has not overruled this position, and the common law principle remains that immunity is forfeited in cases of malice. The special pleas raised by the defendants, asserting immunity and lack of vicarious liability, were dismissed as they do not preclude liabi…
Source excerpt
Minister of Safety and Security v Van Der Walt and Another (1037/13) [2014] ZASCA 174; 2015 (2) SACR 1 (SCA) (19 November 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' detention was unlawful, as it resulted from the negligent conduct of the investigating officer, Phoshoko, who failed to ensure that the correct charges were placed before the magistrate. The Minister of Safety and Security was found vicariously liable for Phoshoko's negligence. The magistrate's conduct, while grossly negligent, was not proven to be malicious, and judicial officers are immune from liability for negligent acts performed in their judicial capacity. Consequently, the Minister of Justice cannot be held vicariously liable for t…
Source excerpt
Claassen v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (A238/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 190; 2010 (2) SACR 451 (WCC) ; 2010 (6) SA 399 (WCC) ; [2010] 4 All SA 197 (WCC) (8 December 2009)
The court held that although the magistrate acted negligently and contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, judicial immunity bars a claim for damages against a magistrate for acts performed in a judicial capacity unless there is proof of malice or bad faith. The magistrate's conduct, while misdirected and negligent, did not amount to malice. The doctrine of judicial immunity is rooted in legal policy to protect judicial independence and is consistent with constitutional principles. The appellant's right to personal liberty was infringed, but the denial of a delictual claim ag…
Source excerpt
Luiters v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (5159/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 173 (19 June 2008)
High Court claim over unlawful arrest, assault, custody abuse, and judicial liability. The plaintiff succeeded only on the second arrest and detention claim.
Beyers v Eleven Judges of the Constitutional Court (CCT25/02) [2002] ZACC 19; 2002 (6) SA 630; 2002 (10) BCLR 1001 (10 September 2002)
The application was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the applicant failed to comply with the requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court, as he did not motivate why the interests of justice warranted such access. Substantively, the relief sought was based on a misunderstanding of the law: courts of final instance, including the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, are not required to provide reasons when refusing leave to appeal. This practice is justified by policy and practical considerations, including the need to control t…
Source excerpt
Argus Printing and Publishing Company Ltd. and Others v Esselen Estate (447/92) [1993] ZASCA 205; 1994 (2) SA 1 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 160 (A) (7 December 1993)
The court held that newspaper criticism of a judge could be defamatory and rejected the claim that judges are barred by public policy from suing for it.
Explore more
