South Africa Case Law

Polovin v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1230/2022)

Polovin v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1230/2022) [2024] ZASCA 140; [2024] 4 All SA 675 (SCA); 2025 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (17 October 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1230/2022

Judges

Mothle, Weiner, Smith, Coppin, Naidoo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the nolle prosequi certificate issued by the DPP is not administrative action and is not reviewable under PAJA; only the underlying decision not to prosecute is subject to review on legality and rationality grounds. The jurisdictional requirements for private prosecution under s 7(1)(a) of the CPA were met, as the second respondent suffered injury to her personality rights, dignity, and privacy. The DPP was entitled to re-issue the certificate and include additional charges, as the right to prosecute had not prescribed and the charges arose from the same…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Nolle Prosequi Certificate
• Jurisdictional Requirements
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Personality Rights
• Costs In Private Prosecution

JR v TR and Another (2021/21609)

JR v TR and Another (2021/21609) [2022] ZAGPJHC 392 (13 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/21609

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court found that all jurisdictional connecting factors for the grant of a final interdict were present within its area, as the applicant's rights were breached where he resides and works in Gauteng. The second respondent's jurisdictional challenge was dismissed, as the Superior Courts Act allows for jurisdiction over parties joined to causes arising within the court's area. The respondents, acting in concert, engaged in a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and defamation against the applicant, violating his constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and freedom. The first respondent's…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Harassment
• Domestic Violence Act
• Personality Rights
• Eviction Of Spouse
• Punitive Costs

Jaguar Feed Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Sibeko Agri Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Others (18000/2019)

Jaguar Feed Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Sibeko Agri Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Others (18000/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 176 (7 December 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18000/2019

Judge

J I Cloete

The High Court dismissed an application for a final interdict against a third respondent over alleged improper threats and held the relief was too broad and unsupported.

• Final Interdict
• Spoliatory Relief
• Extortion
• Costs Order
• Personality Rights
• Final-interdict

T G v W C (3198/2019)

T G v W C (3198/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 229 (28 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

3198/2019

Judge

Fisher

The High Court held that a delict claim for wasted wedding costs from fraudulent misrepresentation fails, but a spouse may claim under the actio iniuriarum.

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Pure Economic Loss
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Wrongfulness
• Matrimonial Property Regime
• Personality Rights

Madito v Peega (CIV APP MG 18/2018)

Madito v Peega (CIV APP MG 18/2018) [2020] ZANWHC 84 (10 July 2020)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP MG 18/2018

Judges

R D Hendricks, J T Djaje

The court found that the appellant's statements were made in public, were defamatory, and were published to third parties, as evidenced by the reactions of bystanders and the appellant's own admissions. The Magistrate's finding of publication was supported by overwhelming evidence. The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the respondent's reputation was not harmed or that she should have a 'tougher skin' due to her profession. The quantum of damages awarded was reasonable, taking into account the respondent's professional status, the public nature of the humiliation, and inflation. T…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Publication Of Defamatory Statement
• Quantum Of Damages
• Personality Rights
• Dignity
• Intentional Publication

South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526)

South African Medical Association NPC v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (2020/21526) [2020] ZAGPPHC 196 (19 May 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2020/21526

Judge

Mokose

The court found that the applicant established a clear right to its name and trademarks, and that the respondents infringed this right by representing themselves as the applicant and using its intellectual property without authority. The applicant had withdrawn any prior consent for such use, and the respondents' continued conduct created confusion among the public and the applicant's members. The Registrar of Labour Relations lacked jurisdiction over intellectual property disputes, and no alternative remedy was available to the applicant. The requirements for a final interdict were met, and…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Trademark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Urgent Relief
• Personality Rights

Mahlangu v Minister of Police (66326/2010)

Mahlangu v Minister of Police (66326/2010) [2017] ZAGPPHC 13; [2017] 5 BLLR 528 (GP); (2017) 38 ILJ 1749 (GP) (25 January 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66326/2010

Judge

D S Fourie

The court held that disciplinary proceedings instituted under statutory regulations, specifically the South African Police Service Discipline Regulations, can fall within the ambit of malicious proceedings as a cause of action. The judge reasoned that the general principles of South African law of delict, particularly the actio iniuriarum, are flexible and capable of accommodating new situations and changing circumstances. The court rejected the strict English law approach, which confines malicious prosecution to criminal or civil proceedings in a court of law, and instead adopted a broader i…

Source excerpt

• Malicious Prosecution
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Personality Rights
• Statutory Regulations

Malan v Minister of Defence (691/2011)

Malan v Minister of Defence (691/2011) [2014] ZANCHC 10 (5 September 2014)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

691/2011

Judge

BM Pakati

The court found that the plaintiff's arrest and detention by the military police was unlawful, as conceded by the defendant and supported by constitutional and common law principles. The physical force used during the arrest, resulting in injuries, was not justified since the arrest itself was unlawful, and the medical evidence confirmed the injuries were consistent with assault. The intrusion by Brig Gen Mpaxa into the medical examination room without consent constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's right to privacy and dignity, with no lawful justification provided by the defendant. T…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Assault
• Invasion Of Privacy
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Personality Rights

Venter v Swart (A584/11)

Venter v Swart (A584/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 326 (9 October 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A584/11

Judges

Henney, Saldanha

The High Court dismissed an appeal in a delict claim arising from an alleged affair, finding the pleaded adultery case was not proved on the evidence.

• Adultery
• Personality Rights
• Causation
• Damages
• Costs Award
• Delict

Kgatla-Kgaphola v Davel, De Klerk, Kgatla Inc (10636/10)

Kgatla-Kgaphola v Davel, De Klerk, Kgatla Inc (10636/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 172 (16 August 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10636/10

Judge

Msimeki

The court held that the applicant, a practising attorney, voluntarily consented in writing to the use of her name in the respondent's registered name when she became a shareholder and director. The shareholders' agreement contains no provision requiring the removal of her name upon termination of her shareholding or directorship, and its non-variation clause excludes reliance on any extraneous or implied terms. The respondent, as a separate legal entity, is entitled to retain its registered name. The applicant failed to establish any infringement of her rights to privacy, personality, or iden…

Source excerpt

• Company Name Dispute
• Shareholders Agreement
• Personality Rights
• Fronting
• Contractual Consent