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
2 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
Administrative Law [2023] ZAGPJHC 733

Afhco Holdings (Pty) Limited v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan and Others (2021/58758)

Afhco Holdings (Pty) Limited v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan and Others (2021/58758) [2023] ZAGPJHC 733 (26 June 2023)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2021/58758
Judge
M Van Nieuwenhuizen

The Court found that the first, second and third respondents were in wilful, deliberate and mala fide contempt of the Court order issued by Vorster AJ on 14 June 2022, which required rectification of the applicant's municipal account. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities and final indulgence, the respondents failed to provide an accurate and rectified municipal statement as ordered. The respondents' purported steps, including approval of journals and submission of a 'Billing Account Adjustment', did not constitute compliance with the specific requirements of the order. The Court reje…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Billing Dispute
  • Contempt Of Court
  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Rectification Of Account
  • Costs Order
  • Local Government Responsibility
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2012] ZAGPPHC 128

Federation for Sustainable Environment and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12)

Federation for Sustainable Environment and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (35672/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 128 (10 July 2012)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
35672/12
Judge
N M Mavundla

The court found that the matter was urgent due to the ongoing violation of the constitutional right to access potable water. The respondents, particularly the sixth to ninth, are responsible for providing water services at the local level and must take reasonable steps to ensure access to potable water. The failure to provide effective and reliable water for more than seven days is unlawful, but the court declined to grant relief against respondents where the delay was partly attributable to community actions (such as burning water tanks). The court ordered the sixth and seventh respondents t…

Source excerpt

  • Right Of Access To Water
  • Municipal Service Delivery
  • Environmental Pollution
  • Compulsory National Standards
  • Local Government Responsibility
  • Constitutional Entitlements
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.