South Africa Case Law

Democratic Alliance v Hlophe and Others (16170/24 ; 16463/2024 ; 16771/2024)

Democratic Alliance v Hlophe and Others (16170/24 ; 16463/2024 ; 16771/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 234; [2025] 3 All SA 447 (WCC) (2 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16170/24

Judges

Mbhele, Basson, Mudau

The court held that the National Assembly failed to exercise its constitutional discretion when designating Dr Hlophe to the Judicial Service Commission, acting under the mistaken belief that it was compelled to accept party nominations without assessing suitability. The designation of Dr Hlophe, who was recently impeached for gross misconduct and continues to denigrate the judiciary, was found to be irrational, unlawful, and inconsistent with the constitutional obligation to protect the integrity and independence of the courts. The court confirmed that the designation constitutes administrat…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Service Commission
• Fit And Proper Criteria
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Separation Of Powers
• Judicial Independence
• Public Confidence In Judiciary

Mluleki Martin Chithi and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022)

Mluleki Martin Chithi and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022) [2024] ZASCA 149; [2025] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2025 (3) SA 183 (SCA) (4 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1203/2021; 1334/2021; 261/2022

Judges

Zondi, Hughes, Matojane, Seegobin, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court was correct to separate and decide the 'community issue' under rule 57(1)(c), as it was a discrete legal question capable of separate determination. The evidence established that the Mavundulu Community did not exist as a community as defined in the Restitution Act at the time of dispossession; their occupation and use of the land after 1913 was as labour tenants and farm workers, not under shared rules of a community. The lay and expert evidence failed to prove the existence of a cohesive group with rights derived from common rules.…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Community Definition
• Costs Orders
• Recusal Of Judge
• Judicial Independence
• Separation Of Issues

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Nkuna and Another (4475/2021)

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Nkuna and Another (4475/2021) [2024] ZALMPPHC 113 (20 September 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4475/2021

Judge

N Gaisa

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a final sequestration order, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason.

• Leave To Appeal
• Sequestration Order
• Judicial Independence
• Court Inherent Power
• Leave-to-appeal
• Sequestration

S v Porritt (SS 40/2006)

S v Porritt (SS 40/2006) [2024] ZAGPJHC 180 (29 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court found that Porritt's allegations of threats to his life and ongoing complaints about prison conditions at Johannesburg Central were sufficiently serious to warrant reconsideration of his detention location. The persistent logistical problems, including late arrivals and shortened court sessions, prejudiced both Porritt's fair trial rights and the efficient administration of justice. The court determined that transferring Porritt to Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility in Pretoria would alleviate these issues, allow for longer court sessions, and ensure his safety and access to medica…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Prisoner Transfer
• Judicial Independence
• Correctional Services
• Court Efficiency

Seriti and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (32193/2023)

Seriti and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others (32193/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 332; 2023 (5) SA 304 (GJ) (14 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32193/2023

Judges

Sutherland DJP, Wepener J, Molahlehi J

The High Court held that retired judges remain subject to JSC discipline under the JSC Act, and that section 7(1)(g) is not inconsistent with the Constitution.

• Definition Of Judge
• Judicial Service Commission Act
• Constitution Section 176
• Judicial Independence
• Oversight Of Judicial Conduct
• Retired-judges

Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (1271/2021)

Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178; [2023] 1 All SA 341 (SCA) (13 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1271/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Nicholls, Gorven, Mabindla-Boqwana, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the delay in bringing the review application was unsatisfactory but condonation was justified due to the importance of the matter and prospects of success. The Defence Force had standing because the appellant's orders directly implicated senior officers and the Minister, requiring them to act or face contempt. The appellant's orders went beyond the issues before him, were not sought by the parties, and were issued mero motu, reflecting a gross irregularity in the proceedings. The constitutional challenges raised by the appellant were abstract, hypothetica…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Review Of Military Court Orders
• Standing
• Delay In Review Applications
• Constitutional Challenge To Statutes
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Motsi v S (A37/22)

Motsi v S (A37/22) [2022] ZAWCHC 151; 2023 (1) SACR 218 (WCC) (15 August 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A37/22

Judge

Thulare

The magistrate's refusal of bail was wrong because the State failed to provide sufficient particulars and reliable evidence to justify continued detention. The bail application was conducted without adequate information regarding the charge, the circumstances of the offence, and the strength of the State's case. The alleged confession was of doubtful admissibility, and the State's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, which was not sufficiently strong to outweigh the appellant's right to be presumed innocent. The interests of justice permitted the release of the appellant on bail,…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Reverse Onus
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Gender Based Violence
• Judicial Independence

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v O'Brien N.O and Others (76995/18)

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v O'Brien N.O and Others (76995/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 520 (2 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76995/18

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the orders granted by the first respondent on 25 and 29 August 2016 were irregular as there was no evidence of continued delay in the trials, and the orders impacted the Minister, who was not a party before the court. The first respondent's reliance on section 342A of the CPA was unjustified under the circumstances, as the trials were ready to proceed and no application for postponement was made. The orders granted on 14 October 2016 were also irregular and ultra vires, as the first respondent used the court to air personal grievances and presided over his own case withou…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Independence
• Review Of Military Court Orders
• Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act
• Defence Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Unreasonable Delay

Mkhatshwa and Others v Mkhatshwa and Others (CCT 220/20)

Mkhatshwa and Others v Mkhatshwa and Others (CCT 220/20) [2021] ZACC 15; 2021 (5) SA 447 (CC); 2021 (10) BCLR 1182 (CC) (18 June 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 220/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, finding that the application bore no reasonable prospects of success. The applicants' allegations of judicial impropriety were unfounded, vexatious, and persisted despite clear refutation by the Judge President. The Biowatch principle did not apply, as the litigation was not a genuine constitutional challenge against the state but rather a private dispute marked by frivolous and vexatious conduct. The applicants' repeated scurrilous remarks against judicial officers justified a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale to deter such…

Source excerpt

• Anton Piller Order
• Punitive Costs
• Vexatious Litigation
• Biowatch Principle
• Right To Property
• Judicial Independence

AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (CCT 278/19; CCT 279/19)

AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (CCT 278/19; CCT 279/19) [2021] ZACC 3; 2021 (4) BCLR 349 (CC); 2021 (3) SA 246 (CC) (4 February 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 278/19; CCT 279/19

Judges

Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Victor AJ

The Constitutional Court held that RICA is unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to provide adequate safeguards for the right to privacy, judicial independence in the appointment and functioning of the designated Judge, post-surveillance notification, management of intercepted data, and special protections for practising lawyers and journalists. The Court found that the lack of post-surveillance notification facilitates abuse and denies subjects the opportunity for legal redress, that the appointment process for the designated Judge undermines independence, and that the absence of clea…

Source excerpt

• Right To Privacy
• Surveillance And Interception
• Judicial Independence
• Post Surveillance Notification
• Freedom Of Expression
• Legal Professional Privilege