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
K.Y.M v S (Appeal) (CAB20/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 140 (30 July 2025)
Appeal against refusal of bail upheld; the High Court granted bail on conditions after finding the magistrate misdirected herself on the evidence.
Chauke v Road Accident Fund (A59/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 214 (31 May 2023)
The court upheld an appeal in a Road Accident Fund matter, finding the trial court wrongly relied on an inadmissible accident report and judicial notice of sunrise.
Taitz Cellular (Pty) Ltd t-a Blue Cellular and Another v Chadez Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Others (29643/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 517 (3 August 2022)
The High Court dismissed an exception to amended particulars of claim, holding that the defendants relied on speculation about company registration dates rather than pleaded facts.
Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Bushiri (43470/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 796 (23 November 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal after finding the dispute had become moot when the respondent fled South Africa and breached bail conditions.
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another v P.M.N obo O.K.N (Leave to Appeal) (53972/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 182 (26 May 2020)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success. Condonation for the late filing was granted, and costs were awarded.
Langa v S (CA&R2/2019; CC24/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 20 (3 March 2020)
High Court criminal appeal over rape convictions dismissed. The court rejected a compulsion defence, upheld the trial’s fairness, and corrected but discounted a judicial-notice error.
MEC Department Police Roads & Transport, FS Province v Roberts and Another (A116-2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 23; 2020 (3) SA 478 (FB) (13 February 2020)
The appeal succeeded because the respondents failed to prove that vegetation control caused the kudu collision, and judicial notice of kudu behavior was impermissible.
Nxumalo N.O v Provincial Department of Housing KwaZulu Natal and Others (12356/2012) [2015] ZAKZDHC 75 (17 September 2015)
The applicant failed to establish a legal basis for the relief sought. The evidence showed that the second respondent, as a biological daughter and heir, lawfully purchased the property from the first respondent, and the third respondent subsequently purchased the property from the estate of the second respondent. There was no evidence that the Director-General or his delegate failed to comply with the requirements of the Conversion of Certain Rights into Leasehold of Ownership Act 81 of 1988. The applicant's arguments regarding fraud and non-compliance with statutory procedures were not supp…
Source excerpt
Nkantini v S (M78/14) [2014] ZAECGHC 60 (24 July 2014)
The magistrate committed a procedural irregularity by relying on facts presented by the prosecutor during sentencing that contradicted the factual basis accepted for the accused's guilty plea. The accused was not afforded an opportunity to dispute these facts, and no evidence was led in terms of section 112(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The accused's right to a fair trial was infringed, rendering the sentencing proceedings irregular. Consequently, the sentence imposed must be set aside and the matter remitted to the magistrate for the imposition of sentence afresh.
Source excerpt
Shezi v S (A947/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 266 (15 May 2014)
The court found that the magistrate did not misdirect himself in sentencing. The appellant's claims of poverty were contradicted by his ownership of assets and his willingness to pay a fine. The magistrate was entitled to take judicial notice of the street value of dagga given the prevalence of such cases in the jurisdiction. The appellant failed to demonstrate genuine remorse, as he did not take the court into his confidence and likely pleaded guilty only because he was caught red-handed. The sentence was not harsh or disproportionate, and there were no grounds for interference on appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
