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
4 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
Delict [2022] ZASCA 57

Minister of Police and Another v Erasmus (366/2021)

Minister of Police and Another v Erasmus (366/2021) [2022] ZASCA 57 (22 April 2022)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
366/2021
Judges
Dambuza, Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Tsoka, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police were only liable for the initial period of detention from 4 May to 5 May 2016, as there was no unlawful conduct by the police or the prosecution that caused the respondent's continued detention after his first court appearance. The respondent's further detention was the result of judicial decisions and his inability to pay bail, not any culpable act by the police or prosecutors. The requirements for malicious detention were not met, and there was no evidence of animus iniuriandi or lack of reasonable and probable cause by the prosecution. The q…

Source excerpt

  • Unlawful Arrest
  • Malicious Detention
  • Quantum Of Damages
  • Actio Iniuriarum
  • Liability Of Police
  • Malicious Prosecution
Read case analysis
Delict [2021] ZAGPPHC 436

Umbhaba Estates (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (22208/2009)

Umbhaba Estates (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (22208/2009) [2021] ZAGPPHC 436 (20 May 2021)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
22208/2009
Judge
Mtati

The court found that the police were repeatedly notified of imminent and ongoing violence during a strike at the Plaintiffs' farm, including acts of intimidation, assault, and damage to property. Despite clear constitutional and statutory duties, and the existence of court orders mandating police intervention, the police failed to take reasonable and timely steps to prevent harm. Their response was reactionary and insufficient, with evidence showing that police presence calmed the situation but was not sustained. The court held that the police's omission was both wrongful and negligent, viola…

Source excerpt

  • Duty Of Care
  • Wrongful And Negligent Conduct
  • Liability Of Police
  • Section 205 Constitution
  • Standing Order 262
  • Failure To Prevent Crime
Read case analysis
Delict [2016] ZAECPEHC 4

F v Minister of Police (3220/12)

F v Minister of Police (3220/12) [2016] ZAECPEHC 4 (16 February 2016)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
3220/12
Judge
N Msizi

The court found that the plaintiff's version was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, especially regarding whether he warned the police of the threat against him. The documentary evidence, including cell registers and police testimony, indicated regular cell visits and opportunities for detainees to raise complaints, which the plaintiff did not utilize. The court held that the police were not aware of any specific threat to the plaintiff and had taken reasonable precautionary measures by conducting regular cell visits and asking for complaints. The failure to release the plaint…

Source excerpt

  • Negligence
  • Duty Of Care
  • Liability Of Police
  • Rape In Custody
  • Foreseeability Of Harm
Read case analysis
Delict [2008] ZAECHC 204

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v W (CA 98/08)

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v W (CA 98/08) [2008] ZAECHC 204; 2009 (4) SA 213 (E) (11 December 2008)

Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Case number
CA 98/08
Judges
Jones, Jansen, Goosen

The appellate court found no material irregularity or clear error in the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence. The respondent’s version was more credible and probable than the appellants’, whose witnesses were found to be regimented and deceitful. The police were negligent in failing to enforce the protection order and arrest the respondent’s husband, and this omission was both the factual and legal cause of the respondent’s damages. The harm suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the police’s failure, and no novus actus interveniens broke the chain of causation. Policy cons…

Source excerpt

  • Negligent Omission
  • Domestic Violence Act
  • Causation
  • Remoteness Of Damage
  • Liability Of Police
  • Protection Order Enforcement
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.