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
Maluleke v Honourable Mr Justice N Ranchod and Others (HCAA 24/2023 ; 215/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 52 (20 March 2025)
Appeal dismissed in a contempt matter against judges, with the court finding no contempt and holding that the application was not properly served or authorised.
Freedom Under Law v Motata (33227/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 14 (28 January 2021)
The court held that section 47(1) consent is needed to cite a retired judge, but granted leave because the review raised a justiciable issue and would not prejudice judicial independence.
N.P v L.P.P (EL 537/2020) [2020] ZAECELLC 10; 2021 (4) SA 559 (ECE) (2 July 2020)
Section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act does not apply to retired judges except where proceedings arise from the execution of judicial functions performed during active service or as acting judges. The purpose of the section is to protect judges in active service from unwarranted litigation and interruptions to the functioning of the courts. The applicant's marriage to the respondent is extant, and she is entitled to seek maintenance and protection orders. There is a justiciable issue between the parties regarding allegations of domestic violence and maintenance. The applicant does not requi…
Source excerpt
Mthenjwa v Steyn and Another (9028/17) [2017] ZAWCHC 161 (30 November 2017)
The court dismissed an application to sue a judge, holding that prior consent from the Head of Court under section 47(1) was required and had not been sought.
Engelbrecht v Khumalo, In re: Tarloy Properties (Pty) Ltd v Engelbrecht (2013/73273) [2016] ZAGPPHC 607; 2016 (4) SA 564 (GP) (18 March 2016)
The High Court granted leave under section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act for an applicant to issue process against a judge in third-party proceedings.
Nagan v Hlophe (10061/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 56 (19 March 2009)
The court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for leave to sue the respondent for damages arising from allegedly defamatory remarks made in the course of judicial functions. The remarks, although made during judgment delivery, were alleged to be irrelevant and without reasonable foundation, and malice was averred. The respondent did not oppose the relief but challenged the merits in his affidavit. The court held that good cause had been shown, as required by section 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and that constitutional rights to dignity, access to courts, and equality b…
Source excerpt
Carrim (Pty) Ltd v Bosielo (18887/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 329 (10 October 2008)
The High Court granted Carrim (Pty) Ltd leave to sue a serving judge for an alleged debt for goods sold and delivered, and ordered costs in the main action.
Voco Trade 190 Ltd v Bosielo (18886/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 328 (10 October 2008)
The High Court refused a postponement and granted leave to sue a sitting judge for an alleged debt, leaving costs to follow the main action.
Soller v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (30663/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 13; 2005 (3) SA 567 (T) (2 February 2005)
The court held that the applicant failed to show good cause for leave to sue the judge. The statements complained of were made in the course of judicial proceedings, were relevant and material to the issues before the court, and did not demonstrate malice. Judicial officers are protected by qualified privilege when acting within their judicial capacity, and the applicant did not establish animus injuriandi. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court found that section 25(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959 serves a legitimate purpose in protecting the independence of the judiciary a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
