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
De Jager v Netcare Limited and Others (42041/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 141 (17 February 2025)
The court admitted surveillance evidence in a health-related privacy dispute, holding POPIA applied and justified processing under section 27(1)(b).
FP Specialty (Pty) Ltd v Dorasamy and Others (D6694/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 49 (27 July 2023)
The High Court granted a final interdict against a former employee and a private investigator who tried to pressure the applicant and its customers under a guise of police involvement.
Liebenberg v Van der Merwe (4762/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 287 (24 October 2022)
The court found that the respondent's social media publications were clearly defamatory, wrongful, and intended to injure the applicant's dignity and reputation. The respondent failed to raise any valid defence such as truth, privilege, or public interest, and did not substantiate his allegations. The applicant established a clear right to privacy and reputation, actual injury, and absence of an adequate alternative remedy, satisfying the requirements for a final interdict. The urgency of the matter was confirmed by the timeline of events and the applicant's prompt action. The court declined…
Source excerpt
Surrogacy Advisory Group v Minister of Health (50683/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 558; [2022] 4 All SA 187 (GP); 2023 (1) SA 241 (GP) (19 July 2022)
The court held that the applicant was not compelled to bring the challenge under PAJA, as the regulations were tested against constitutional rights beyond administrative justice. The psychological evaluation requirement for known donors and recipients, including married couples and permanent partners, was found to infringe the rights to equality, privacy, and access to healthcare, with no sufficient justification provided by the respondent. The prohibition on preimplantation sex selection was held to violate the right to bodily and psychological integrity and privacy, as it allowed for prenat…
Source excerpt
Gigaba v Minister of Police and Others (43469/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 55; [2021] 3 All SA 495 (GP) (11 February 2021)
Urgent High Court matter on unlawful arrest, search and seizure, and alleged abuse of Hawks powers in a domestic dispute.
Oosthuizen v Magistrate for the District of Hermanus and Others (8633/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 138; 2021 (1) SACR 278 (WCC) (29 October 2020)
The court found the search warrant invalid on two principal grounds: first, it failed to indicate with reasonable intelligibility and specificity the nature of the suspected offences, referencing incorrect statutory provisions and creating confusion about the substances involved. Second, the warrant authorised the seizure of an impermissibly broad category of articles, namely 'all electronic equipment', without limiting the search to material relevant to the suspected offences. These defects evidenced a failure by the Magistrate to properly apply his mind and resulted in an unlawful invasion…
Source excerpt
Vumacam (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg Roads Agency and Others (14867/20) [2020] ZAGPJHC 186 (20 August 2020)
The High Court held that the Johannesburg Roads Agency unlawfully suspended CCTV wayleave applications and had to consider and determine Vumacam’s pending applications.
Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (25978/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 384; [2019] 4 All SA 343 (GP); 2020 (1) SA 90 (GP) ; 2020 (1) SACR 139 (GP) (16 September 2019)
The court found that RICA is unconstitutional in several respects: it fails to provide for post-surveillance notification to subjects, undermining access to courts and remedies for abuse; the appointment process for the designated judge lacks sufficient independence from the executive, compromising the safeguards against abuse; the statute does not prescribe adequate procedures for the management, storage, and destruction of intercepted data, leaving privacy rights vulnerable; and it does not expressly protect legal privilege and journalistic sources, which are essential to fair trial and fre…
Source excerpt
KS v AM (A3032/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 297; 2018 (1) SACR 240 (GJ) (24 October 2017)
High Court appeal under the Domestic Violence Act: the magistrate’s refusal to order forensic removal of intimate digital material was set aside.
Nova Property Group Holdings v Cobbett (20815/2014) [2016] ZASCA 63; [2016] 3 All SA 32 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA) (12 May 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the interlocutory order dismissing the application to compel discovery was appealable under s 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, given the conflicting judgments on the interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies Act and the interests of justice. On the merits, the court found that s 26(2) confers an unqualified right of access to a company's securities register, and the motives of the requester are irrelevant. The right is not subject to the provisions of PAIA, as s 26(7) makes it additional to PAIA rights. The court rejected the Companies' argument that pr…
Source excerpt
Explore more
