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
N.S v N.L.S (EL544/2024) [2025] ZAECELLC 12 (1 July 2025)
The court dismissed an application to compel compliance with a divorce settlement and rejected a contempt claim, finding alternative contractual remedies were not exhausted.
Bekentla v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (K.S.D) (3580/2020) [2025] ZAECMHC 58 (1 July 2025)
The court dismissed an employee’s claim for an acting allowance, finding the municipality’s staff-establishment changes and later placement in a permanent post ended the acting arrangement.
Section 99 Claridge Court Shareblock (Pty) Ltd v Pino's General Trading CC and Others (3692/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 3 (17 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to remove an unlawful wall on sectional title common property because the applicant failed to prove a clear right.
Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Fund and Others (016469/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1335 (12 December 2024)
The application is dismissed because Netcare failed to establish that the CompEasy system is dysfunctional in law or fact. The factual disputes regarding the system's functionality are material and cannot be resolved on motion papers. The court cannot grant declaratory or mandatory relief imposing duties on the Compensation Fund that are not provided for in COIDA or its regulations, absent a constitutional challenge to the statute. Much of the functionality sought by Netcare is already present in the system, and Netcare's difficulties arise from operational and procedural issues rather than s…
Source excerpt
People of His Way Ministry v Mokuke and Others (2023/032252) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1198 (22 November 2024)
The High Court granted a final interdict restraining a breakaway church group from using the applicant’s name and collecting funds, and ordered return of records and funds.
Mvula v City of Cape Town and Others (8583/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 221 (16 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application for return of an impounded taxi, finding the vehicle released to the Sheriff was the same as the one in the court order.
Rheederplase (Pty) Ltd v Montsioa and Others (LCC46/2021) [2024] ZALCC 21 (12 August 2024)
The Court found that the Applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought. The First Respondent was authorised as a Project Officer to compile the report under section 9(3) of ESTA, and the report was submitted on behalf of the Department, not as a personal Probation Officer's report. The Applicant's requests for appointment letters and further documentation were misplaced, as the statutory framework does not require the report to be compiled only by a Probation Officer appointed under the Probation Services Act. The Applicant has alternative remedies, including proceeding wit…
Source excerpt
Luphondo v Minister of Justice and Another (052550-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 648 (9 July 2024)
The court struck an urgent PAJA review application from the roll because it was procedurally defective, including non-service on the second respondent.
Pillay and Another v Moonsamy and Another (D6707/21) [2024] ZAKZDHC 35 (5 June 2024)
The court found that the respondents' roof structure encroaches onto the applicants' property by 78cm, as confirmed by the applicants' land surveyor and not meaningfully disputed by the respondents. The respondents' denial was unsupported by countervailing measurements or substantive evidence. The historical nature of the structure and its approval by municipal plans do not absolve the current owners of liability for the encroachment. South African law protects property rights and provides that the registered owner is responsible for correcting encroachments. The court determined that no bona…
Source excerpt
N.M v Hamadulay N.O and Others (EL713/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 17 (10 May 2024)
The court dismissed an urgent application for R500,000 from a deceased estate, holding that jurisdiction was lacking and the Master’s consent had not been sought.
Explore more
