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
Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum and Others (6111/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 126 (25 June 2025)
The court made a final interdict against the first four respondents, but discharged the interim order against the fifth respondent for lack of proof.
Thusi v Minister of Police and Another (KP58/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 99 (11 June 2025)
High Court action for unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution dismissed after finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Shude v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education and Another (299/2022) [2025] ZAECBHC 12 (3 June 2025)
The High Court found the respondents in contempt for delayed compliance with pension-related orders, but by the hearing they had complied. Costs were awarded against them.
Dumakude v Bidvest Bank Ltd and Another (054716/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 604 (21 May 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent application to unfreeze a bank account from the roll, finding the applicant failed to prove urgency under Rule 6(12).
Chuene v Favours Cathedral Church (Appeal) (HCAA30/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 95 (14 May 2025)
The court found that the sale agreement between the appellant and respondent was valid and enforceable. The appellant admitted to both the conclusion of the sale agreement and receipt of the purchase price. The statutory provisions of the Alienation of Land Act invoked by the appellant, particularly section 29A, were intended to protect purchasers, not sellers. The appellant, as seller, could not rely on these provisions to challenge the validity of the contract. The agreement was in writing, signed by both parties, and contained all essential elements required by law. The court a quo correct…
Source excerpt
Stewart v Dutch Wings Foundation and Others (C605/2018) [2025] ZALCCT 33 (7 May 2025)
The Court found that the proceedings were governed by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, not the Labour Relations Act, and thus the principle that costs follow the result applied. The Applicant was justified in seeking costs due to the Respondents' conduct and the necessity of litigation to enforce prior orders. There was no evidence of exceptional circumstances warranting a punitive costs order on an attorney and own client scale. The Respondents voluntarily participated in the proceedings and agreed to the orders, including the postponement and the determination of costs at a later sta…
Source excerpt
Ndodana Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others v South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited and Others (B3733/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 448 (2 May 2025)
The High Court allocated costs in several interlocutory applications arising from a review, awarding Ndodana costs against SANRAL and Ingerop in some matters and ordering no costs in another.
Tshabangu and Others v Road Accident Fund (A317/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 453 (30 April 2025)
The court held that the Taxing Master does not have discretion to allow preparation costs for expert witnesses unless authorised by a court order or by consent of all interested parties. The orders of the court a quo were therefore incorrect in leaving this matter to the Taxing Master's discretion. The appeal was upheld and the orders amended to require the defendant to pay the reasonable preparation costs of expert witnesses, including the costs of reports, updated reports, and calculations.
Source excerpt
Van Staden v Road Accident Fund (4136/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 119 (3 April 2025)
The High Court awarded the plaintiff R700,000 in general damages for injuries from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident, with party and party costs.
Nedbank Limited v Umvoti Traders 1006 CC and Another (1600/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 30 (18 March 2025)
The applicant satisfied the requirements of rule 46A for execution against the primary residence. The sheriff's nulla bona return confirmed no movable assets were available. The second respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of alternative means to settle the debt, despite claiming improved financial circumstances and proposing a monthly payment plan. The court found the proposal inadequate and unsupported by evidence. The applicant's compliance with rule 46A and the lack of acceptable alternatives justified execution against the property. The reserve price was set at R 1,377,610, ca…
Source excerpt
Explore more
