South Africa Case Law

Motjamela v George Local Municipality.

The Court held that it had constitutional jurisdiction because both the vexatious litigant order and the unsolicited mental health assessment order implicated rights under sections 10, 12, 14 and 34 of the Constitution. It found that the High Court’s vexatious litigant order was too broad because it extended beyond the evidence and beyond the relief sought, and therefore had to be replaced with a narrower order limited to litigation concerning the applicant’s terminated Expanded Public Works Programme employment contracts. It further held that the mental health assessment order was unsustaina…

Source excerpt

• Vexatious litigant order
• Mental health assessment order
• Access to courts
• Dignity
• Privacy
• Freedom and security of the person

De Jager v Netcare Limited and Others (42041/16)

De Jager v Netcare Limited and Others (42041/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 141 (17 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

42041/16

Judge

M P Motha

The court admitted surveillance evidence in a health-related privacy dispute, holding POPIA applied and justified processing under section 27(1)(b).

• Protection Of Personal Information Act
• Privacy Rights
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Surveillance
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Popia

Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021)

Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1164 (19 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25902/2021

Judge

N Manoim

The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict against 방송 of footage of a businessman was acquired by ruse, finding no clear right and that damages were an adequate remedy.

• Interdict
• Right To Privacy
• Prior Restraint
• Freedom Of Expression
• Journalistic Exclusion
• Protection Of Personal Information Act

CEA v MB (D4460/2023)

CEA v MB (D4460/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 26 (17 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D4460/2023

Judge

Mossop

The High Court interdicted a former husband from publishing or sharing CCTV footage of his ex-wife’s private sexual encounter and ordered punitive costs for his conduct.

• Right To Privacy
• Divorce Proceedings
• Interdict
• Section 14 Constitution
• Unlawful Disclosure Of Private Facts
• Privacy

Jamangile and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (13659/2020)

Jamangile and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (13659/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 38 (19 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13659/2020

Judge

Kgomongwe, AJ

The High Court held that humiliating searches of two correctional services employees unlawfully infringed their dignity and privacy, and the employer is liable for damages.

• Right To Dignity
• Right To Privacy
• Unlawful Search
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Vicarious Liability
• Separation Of Issues

N.A. Nonxuba Attorneys and Another v Minister of Police and Others (1323/2023)

N.A. Nonxuba Attorneys and Another v Minister of Police and Others (1323/2023) [2023] ZAECELLC 25 (12 September 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

1323/2023

Judge

Beshe

The High Court granted urgent interim relief over seized documents, preserving them pending a Part B challenge to the validity of search warrants.

• Search And Seizure
• Cyber Crimes Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Interim Relief
• Urgency
• Admissibility Of Evidence

K.A.B v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (1438/2021)

K.A.B v National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (NUMSA) and Others (1438/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 288; [2023] 10 BLLR 1098 (FB); (2023) 44 ILJ 2554 (FSB) (21 July 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1438/2021

Judge

Chesiwe

The High Court held that disclosing an employee’s HIV status in a workplace grievance meeting was wrongful defamation and an invasion of privacy, awarding R100,000 in damages.

• Defamation
• Right To Privacy
• Dignity
• Quantification Of Damages
• Publication
• Animus Injurandi

Arena Holdings (Pty) Limited t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others

The Court held that sections 35(1) and 46 of PAIA, together with sections 67(4) and 69(2) of the TAA, unconstitutionally impose an absolute bar on disclosure of taxpayer information to a requester even where the public-interest override criteria are met. The majority concluded that this absolute insulation from the public-interest override is unreasonable and unjustifiable in terms of section 36, and that a limited reading-in and suspension for 24 months was the appropriate remedy while Parliament cures the defect.

Source excerpt

• Right of access to information
• Freedom of expression
• Privacy
• Taxpayer confidentiality
• Public-interest override
• Constitutional invalidity

Smuts N.O. and Others v Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (1199/2021)

Smuts N.O. and Others v Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (1199/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 42 (26 July 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1199/2021

Judge

Govindjee

The High Court held that refusal of access to leopard permit applications and permits under PAIA was unjustified and ordered disclosure.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Right To Privacy
• Public Interest Override
• Threatened Or Protected Species
• Permit Disclosure
• Animal Welfare

Voice of the Unborn Baby NPC and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (16402/17)

Voice of the Unborn Baby NPC and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (16402/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 161; 2021 (4) SA 307 (GP) (26 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16402/17

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court found that the impugned provisions of BADRA and Regulation 1 unconstitutionally exclude bereaved parents from burying fetal remains in cases of pregnancy loss other than stillbirth, infringing their rights to dignity, privacy, religion, and equality. The differentiation based on viability was not rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose, as the emotional impact of pregnancy loss is similar regardless of gestational age. The court held that the denial of burial rights is insensitive and disrespectful to bereaved parents and that the law should accommodate those who wis…

Source excerpt

• Right To Burial
• Dignity
• Equality
• Privacy
• Religious Freedom
• Constitutional Invalidity