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
Alberts v S (A286/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 767 (30 July 2024)
The High Court upheld Alberts’ appeal on cruelty and obstruction counts, but confirmed her conviction for possessing a vervet monkey without a permit.
Hume v Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and Another (33593/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 33; 2022 (1) SACR 518 (GP) (28 January 2022)
High Court dismissed a claim for return of 181 rhino horns seized under the CPA, holding that section 34 governed their disposal and a court order was required.
MEC for Department of Agriculture And Rural Development N.O v Venter; In re: Venter v Acting Chief Magistrate Pretoria North Magistrate's Court and Others (73681/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 537 (18 May 2015)
The High Court dismissed applications for condonation and rescission after finding no reasonable explanation for the default and no prima facie bona fide defence.
Laforet N.O. and Another v Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo and Another (A798/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 638 (25 August 2014)
The court found that the appellants failed to establish ownership of the cheetah at the time of its removal, as they had released it into the wild and thus relinquished control and intention to own. The evidence indicated an absence of control and intention to own after release. The Supreme Court of Appeal precedent cited by the appellants was distinguished, as in that case the animals were confined and controlled, whereas here the cheetah was free-roaming. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the return of the cheetah, and the counter-application was correctly dismissed. The ex…
Source excerpt
Hari and Others v Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association and Others (321/04) [2005] ZANWHC 8 (1 January 2005)
Full Bench appeal on taxi operators and cross-border permits, holding the respondents were not conducting cross-border transport and setting aside the interdict.
Explore more
