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
Ramatsekisa v Special Investigating Unit and Others (GP21/2023) [2025] ZAST 1 (23 January 2025)
The Special Tribunal dismissed a reconsideration application and confirmed an ex parte preservation order over pension benefits, finding a prima facie case and no basis to rescind it.
Nwandlamhari Communal Property Association v Matebula and Others (A265/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 588 (28 June 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal by a communal property association, setting aside vague and unsupported orders about documents, funds, and the Director-General’s directions.
Nadat v Bibi-Sulaman and Another (1718/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 39 (23 April 2024)
The court dismissed an application to remove an executrix of a deceased estate, finding the applicant failed to prove prejudice to the estate or fraud on the papers.
Air Chefs SOC Limited v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (31083/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 47 (26 January 2024)
The court found that Air Chefs' withdrawal of the tender award to Mantelli's constituted unlawful administrative action and maladministration. The Public Protector's findings and remedial action were rationally connected to the facts and lawful under the legality doctrine. However, there was no credible evidence of dishonesty or fraud by Air Chefs or SAA officials, and thus no basis for awarding damages beyond reimbursement of proven out-of-pocket expenses. The Public Protector acted within her powers, and her failure to refer the matter for criminal prosecution was justified given the lack o…
Source excerpt
Mailula and Another v Modiba and Another (2022/7692) [2023] ZAGPJHC 367 (24 April 2023)
The court postponed an application to remove an executrix, ordered the Master to report on removal steps, and barred further estate action pending that report.
Medical Information Technology South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Public Protector and Others (29760/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 50 (31 January 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that their interests were directly affected by the findings and recommendations of the Public Protector. The remedial actions were directed at government departments and did not have direct negative implications for the applicants. The findings and remedial actions were rational, lawful, and based on sufficient evidence, particularly regarding procurement irregularities and conflict of interest. The applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the Report, and their application for review was dismissed. The court condoned the late instit…
Source excerpt
Dladla N.O and Others v Lamula N.O and Others (27440/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 868 (18 November 2022)
The High Court removed all trustees of a land restitution trust for maladministration and appointed Petrus Zeelie as sole trustee for 12 months.
Price and Another v Kaplan N.O. and Others (44937/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 429 (14 June 2022)
The court found that the Trust Deed required a minimum of three trustees for the Trust to have capacity to act. Morris Kaplan failed to appoint additional trustees after the deaths of the original trustees, resulting in the Trust’s incapacity for over fourteen years. Actions taken by Morris, including resolutions and appointments, were invalid due to lack of authority. The purported appointment of new trustees without letters of authority from the Master was also invalid. The applicants established grounds for removal of Morris and the other respondents as trustees due to maladministration, b…
Source excerpt
Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 390 (1 June 2022)
The High Court reviewed and set aside the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action over IPID recruitment and procurement irregularities.
Msibi v Office of the Public Protector and Others (75594/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 37 (26 January 2022)
The court found that the Public Protector failed to comply with her constitutional and statutory obligations by not affording the applicant a hearing during the course of her investigation and prior to releasing preliminary findings. Section 7(9)(a) of the Public Protector Act, interpreted in light of section 33(1) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, creates an obligation to hear an implicated person before adverse findings are made. The Public Protector's process was irrational and unlawful, as she only invited the applicant to respond after preliminary findings were relea…
Source excerpt
Explore more
