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
Roberts v Mabuza (A091314/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 668 (2 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a protection order, holding that repeated profane and demeaning workplace remarks amounted to harassment under the Act.
Watson v Adams and Others (2025/052925) [2025] ZAGPJHC 436 (8 May 2025)
The court found that the interim protection order was obtained by the first respondent through material non-disclosure and constituted an abuse of process. The respondent failed to disclose her own criminal conduct, the applicant's role as a state witness, and the fact that her identity was publicised by a third party, not the applicant. The applicant was denied a hearing both on anticipation and on the return date, resulting in a significant infringement of her constitutional rights. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders obtained through abuse of process, especially wh…
Source excerpt
Wilson v Minister of Police and Others (2021/56553) [2025] ZAGPJHC 268 (11 March 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff's arrest was unlawful as the SAPS failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection from Harassment Act, specifically the absence of reasonable grounds for imminent harm and failure to properly execute the warrant. The investigating officer did not act in terms of the Act and did not apply his mind to the mandatory considerations. The plaintiff should have been given a written notice to appear in court rather than being arrested. The unlawful arrest directly caused the plaintiff's continued detention, as she would not have been in custody but for the…
Source excerpt
L.H obo C.H v R.A obo M.A (A2024/63073) [2025] ZAGPJHC 17 (14 January 2025)
The appeal succeeded because the magistrate failed to properly consider the admissibility of evidence, relied on hearsay, and did not allow oral evidence or participation by the children. The magistrate did not address substantial inconsistencies in the respondent’s affidavits and failed to provide written reasons for the order, prejudicing the appellant’s right to appeal. The conduct alleged did not meet the statutory definition of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act, particularly given the age and capacity of the children involved. The best interests of the children were not…
Source excerpt
G.P v Venter (A 100/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1161 (13 November 2024)
The court found that the appellant failed to establish urgency, as the last alleged incident occurred in November 2022 and the application was only brought in October 2023. The appellant's explanations for the delay, including claims of entrapment and threats, were unsupported by evidence. Allegations of murder, embezzlement, and false criminal charges were speculative and unsubstantiated. The transcript and record did not demonstrate any procedural irregularity under PAJA. The invocation of section 11(2) of the Constitution was not justified by the facts. The appellant did not present a prim…
Source excerpt
Pringle v Mailula (773/23) [2024] ZASCA 146; 2025 (1) SACR 117 (SCA) (25 October 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that further evidence was properly received under the Protection from Harassment Act and reinstated the protection order.
Letlojane v Naeema Cassim NO (CIV APP/MG/09/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 266 (15 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed appeal against a modest damages award for malicious prosecution, finding no basis to disturb the magistrates’ court quantum.
M.M v Kiewiet (A193/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 411 (3 May 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal against dismissal of a harassment protection-order application, holding that the CSOS Act did not oust magistrates’ court jurisdiction.
Horner v Baranov (AR384/22) [2023] ZAKZPHC 126 (3 November 2023)
The court found that the magistrate erred in confirming the interim protection order. The dog bite incident, even on the respondent's version, did not amount to harassment as defined in the Act. The verbal exchange on 19 February 2022, including the statements about karma, was not objectively oppressive or unreasonable and did not reach the threshold required for harassment. The magistrate's approach conflated contextual relevance with a pattern of conduct, and the relief granted extended beyond the facts established. The appeal was upheld and the interim protection order discharged.
Source excerpt
Barker v S (A35/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 55; 2024 (1) SACR 666 (MM) (25 October 2023)
The High Court upheld Wayne Barker’s appeal after finding the State failed to prove proper service of a protection order beyond reasonable doubt.
Explore more
