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
Waterfall Country Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/8060881) [2025] ZAGPJHC 437 (9 May 2025)
The High Court held that Johannesburg’s water-bylaw penalties for unauthorised meters were unlawful because section 111 did not authorise them on these facts.
Lewray Investments (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Others (2025/024502) [2025] ZAGPJHC 143 (25 February 2025)
The High Court set aside the City of Johannesburg’s eviction of Lewray Investments, held the spoliation unlawful, ordered restoration of possession, and granted punitive costs.
Zascotime (Pty) Ltd v Abrina 3765 (Pty) Ltd t/a BMW Sandton (A5014 / 2022 ; 35714 / 2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 677 (9 June 2023)
The court found that the appellant had exclusive knowledge of the pending litigation with the City of Johannesburg and the illegality of the advertising sign. The appellant failed to disclose these material facts to the respondent, which would have influenced the respondent's decision to enter into the agreement. The moratorium relied upon by the appellant did not apply, as the appellant had not entered into the required agreement with the City of Johannesburg to regularise the sign. The court held that the appellant's non-disclosure constituted a breach of its duty to disclose material infor…
Source excerpt
Bells Trust v Canvas Outdoor Pty (Ltd) and Another (A5065/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 630 (5 June 2023)
The High Court held the Bells Trust had a direct and substantial interest and should have been allowed to intervene in a review over billboard approval.
Brandfort Forum and Others v Masilonyana Local Municipality and Others (5520/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 71 (10 March 2023)
The court found that the first respondent failed to adopt any bylaw authorising the supply and sale of electricity by prepaid metering, did not follow proper procurement procedures in appointing the third respondent, and failed to ensure public participation and transparency. No council resolution was produced, and the installation of prepaid meters was imposed on residents without lawful process. The first respondent also failed to determine and publish tariffs for prepaid electricity. These failures constituted violations of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act and the Electricity Re…
Source excerpt
Vumacam (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg Roads Agency and Others (14867/20) [2020] ZAGPJHC 186 (20 August 2020)
The High Court held that the Johannesburg Roads Agency unlawfully suspended CCTV wayleave applications and had to consider and determine Vumacam’s pending applications.
Investec Property (Pty) Limited v China City Limpopo (Pty) Limited and Others (2168/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 35 (19 June 2020)
The court confirmed lease cancellations, interdicted unlawful retail use of zoned industrial property, ordered eviction, and compelled municipal enforcement.
Marx and Others v Gray and Others (3632/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 46 (5 March 2020)
The court found that the respondents were conducting a business from the premises, as evidenced by the employment of several workers and the advertising of swimming lessons. The applicants, as residents of the area, have locus standi to enforce zoning restrictions, regardless of their proximity to the property. The breach of zoning provisions constitutes sufficient injury, and no alternative remedy is reasonably available to the applicants. The respondents' arguments regarding alternative remedies and lack of standing were rejected. The application for a final interdict was justified and gran…
Source excerpt
Port st Johns Municipality v Fono and Others (96/2017) [2020] ZAECMHC 5 (1 January 2020)
Leave to appeal was granted in a dispute over building regulation, SPLUMA, and environmental issues affecting property in the former Transkei.
Iliad Trading (Pty) Ltd v Sibane and Others (36719/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 401 (30 September 2019)
The respondents are unlawful occupiers under PIE, having remained in occupation after the oral lease agreements were terminated with proper notice. The applicant, a private commercial entity, is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation but has offered interest-free loans to assist the respondents. The respondents have had ample time—over four years—to secure alternative accommodation, are employed, and have access to pension funds. Their continued occupation breaches both the lease agreement and municipal bylaws. The premises are unsuitable for residential use, especially for children…
Source excerpt
Explore more
