Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
6 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional Law [2025] ZAGPPHC 29

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others [2025] ZAGPPHC 29; [2025] 2 All SA 230 (GP); 2025 (4) SA 249 (GP) (23 January 2025)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
071891/2023
Judge
Twala M L

The court found that the SRD grant regulations and procedures unlawfully and unconstitutionally excluded eligible applicants from accessing social assistance, violating section 27 of the Constitution. The online-only application process constituted an unreasonable barrier for poor and vulnerable persons, lacking justification for differentiation from other grants. The definitions of 'income' and 'financial support' were interpreted too broadly, resulting in unjust exclusions. Both the bank and database verification processes were unreliable, lacked conflict resolution mechanisms, and operated…

Source excerpt

  • Social Assistance
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Regulatory Invalidity
  • Income Thresholds
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Bill Of Rights Limitation
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAECMHC 40

Mnqandi v Walter Sisulu University and Others (440/2024)

Mnqandi v Walter Sisulu University and Others (440/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 40 (28 May 2024)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Case number
440/2024
Judge
L. Rusi

The Court found that admission and registration at the University are distinct processes, with registration subject to space availability and a first come first served basis as set out in the University's prospectus. The applicant failed to produce written notification from the Registrar specifying the terms and date of her admission, and did not prove that the University's offer was irrevocable or kept open for a specific period. The evidence showed that the applicant was one of many admitted students competing for limited spaces, and her acceptance and payment occurred after the course was…

Source excerpt

  • Specific Performance
  • Breach Of Contract
  • Right To Further Education
  • University Admission Policy
  • Urgent Interdict
  • Progressive Realisation
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2017] ZAGPJHC 9

Mahapa v Minister of Higher Education and Another (2017/01217)

Mahapa v Minister of Higher Education and Another (2017/01217) [2017] ZAGPJHC 9; [2017] 2 All SA 254 (GJ) (7 February 2017)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2017/01217
Judge
M M MABESELE

Section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution does not impose an immediate obligation on the state to provide funding for tertiary education. The right to further education is subject to progressive realisation through reasonable measures, unlike the right to basic education, which is immediately enforceable. The applicant's argument that the state must secure funds for his tertiary studies cannot stand, as the constitutional obligation is limited to making further education progressively available and accessible, not to guaranteeing individual funding. The application was dismissed as the relief soug…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Education
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Constitutional Obligation
  • Section 29
  • State Funding
  • Urgency In Applications
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2011] ZASCA 47

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (2011 (4) SA 337 (SCA);

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (2011 (4) SA 337 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 471 (SCA)) [2011] ZASCA 47; 338/10 (30 March 2011)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
338/10
Judges
Navsa, Tshiqi, Theron, Plasket, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City of Johannesburg has a direct constitutional and statutory obligation to provide temporary emergency accommodation to the occupiers upon eviction, and may use its own resources for this purpose. The City's housing policy, which excluded certain categories of evictees from consideration for emergency accommodation, was found to be inflexible, irrational, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The Court rejected the City's argument that it could only act as an agent of national or provincial government when funded, finding that the legislative framework e…

Source excerpt

  • Right Of Access To Housing
  • Eviction Proceedings
  • Municipal Obligations
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Unlawful Occupation
  • Housing Policy Review
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZASCA 21

Ekurhuleni Metropolian Municipality v Dada NO and Others (280/2009)

Ekurhuleni Metropolian Municipality v Dada NO and Others (280/2009) [2009] ZASCA 21; 2009 (4) SA 463 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 379 (SCA) (27 March 2009)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
280/2009
Judges
Harms, Brand, Mhlantla, Hurt, Bosielo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred by ordering the municipality to purchase the property for informal occupiers, as this constituted a prohibited usurpation of municipal functions and disregarded the principle of judicial deference. The order was not sought by any party, was not rationally related to the evidence, and failed to respect the statutory procedures and policy frameworks governing municipal acquisition of property and housing provision. The judge's approach contradicted established constitutional jurisprudence, which emphasises progressive realisation…

Source excerpt

  • Right Of Access To Housing
  • Judicial Deference
  • Separation Of Powers
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Eviction Procedure
  • Appropriate Relief
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZASCA 20

City of Johannesburg and Others v Mazibuko and Others (489/08)

City of Johannesburg and Others v Mazibuko and Others (489/08) [2009] ZASCA 20; 2009 (3) SA 592 (SCA) ; 2009 (8) BCLR 791 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 202 (SCA) (25 March 2009)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
489/08
Judges
Streicher, Mthiyane, Jafta, Maya, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Water Services Act and its regulations do not deprive anyone of the constitutional right of access to sufficient water under section 27(1). The prescribed minimum of 25 litres per person per day is a floor, not a ceiling, and may not be sufficient in all circumstances, particularly for residents with waterborne sanitation. The court found, on the evidence, that 42 litres per person per day constitutes sufficient water for dignified human existence in Phiri. The City is constitutionally obliged to provide this quantity free to residents who cannot affo…

Source excerpt

  • Right Of Access To Water
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Municipal Services
  • Water Services Act
  • Prepayment Meters
  • Appropriate Relief
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2009] ZAKZHC 1

Abahlali Basemjondolo Movement SA v and Another v Premier of Kwazulu-Natal and Others (1874/08)

Abahlali Basemjondolo Movement SA v and Another v Premier of Kwazulu-Natal and Others (1874/08) [2009] ZAKZHC 1; 2009 (3) SA 245 (D) ; 2009 (4) BCLR 422 (D&CLD) ; [2009] 2 All SA 293 (D) (27 January 2009)

Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Case number
1874/08
Judge
Tshabalala JP

The court found that the Slums Act, when read in its entirety, deals primarily with housing and not solely with land or tenure. Housing is a concurrent competence of national and provincial government under the Constitution. The Slums Act provides a legislative framework for implementing housing policies in KwaZulu-Natal and incorporates the procedural safeguards of the PIE Act, ensuring evictions are subject to judicial oversight and consideration of relevant circumstances. The Act does not conflict with national legislation, as it endorses and operates within the framework of the Housing Ac…

Source excerpt

  • Provincial Legislative Competence
  • Right To Housing
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Eviction Procedure
  • Conflict Of Laws
  • Meaningful Engagement
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [1999] ZAWCHC 1

Grootboom and Others v Oostenberg Municipality and Others (6826/99)

Grootboom and Others v Oostenberg Municipality and Others (6826/99) [1999] ZAWCHC 1 (17 December 1999)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
6826/99
Judges
D M Davis, R G Comrie

The court held that section 26 of the Constitution does not impose an immediate obligation on the State to provide adequate housing, as the right is subject to progressive realisation and available resources. The respondents demonstrated that a rational housing programme was in place, and the applicants failed to show entitlement to immediate housing under section 26. However, section 28(1)(c) confers an unqualified right to shelter on children, and the best interests of the child require that children not be separated from their parents when shelter is provided. The court declared that the S…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Shelter
  • Children Socio Economic Rights
  • Progressive Realisation
  • Minimum Core Obligation
  • Best Interests Of Child
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.