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
Civil Procedure [2014] ZASCA 88

Fischer and Another v Ramahlele and Others (203/2014)

Fischer and Another v Ramahlele and Others (203/2014) [2014] ZASCA 88; 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 395 (SCA) (4 June 2014)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
203/2014
Judges
Mpati, Theron, Wallis, Hancke, Swain

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred by deciding the matter on legal points not emerging from the papers and not raised by the parties, and by failing to hear oral evidence as previously ordered. The central factual dispute was whether the demolished structures were occupied and constituted homes of the counter applicants. The parties had agreed to resolve this dispute by oral evidence, and the High Court was not entitled to decide the case on alternative legal grounds. The court emphasized that judicial restraint is required and that courts must adjudicate only the issu…

Source excerpt

  • Mandament Van Spolie
  • Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
  • Section 26 Constitution
  • Oral Evidence Dispute
  • Judicial Restraint
  • Land Invasion
Read case analysis
Land And Property [2007] ZALCC 13

Van Heerden v Magaga and Others (LCC48R/2007)

Van Heerden v Magaga and Others (LCC48R/2007) [2007] ZALCC 13 (11 July 2007)

Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC48R/2007
Judge
T Ncube

The Land Claims Court found that the magistrate failed to properly apply his mind to the facts and did not consider all relevant circumstances as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution. The applicant did not prove that the respondents were not dependants of the late Menzi, nor did he establish that the requirements of section 15(1)(a)-(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met. The evidence did not support the allegations of damage or imminent danger, and the hardship to the respondents, including a minor child, outweighed any hardship to the applicant. No adequate arrange…

Source excerpt

  • Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
  • Urgent Eviction Application
  • Constitutional Right To Housing
  • Balance Of Hardship
  • Oral Evidence Dispute
  • Restoration Of Occupation
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.