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
Mayongo v Preyer (EC03/2024) [2025] ZAEQC 5 (14 May 2025)
An Equality Court ordered costs against the respondent, authorized his arrest warrant, and postponed the matter after he failed to attend proceedings.
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Other (J409/2024) [2025] ZALCJHB 176 (5 May 2025)
The court found that the appellant's late filing of the appeal was not excessively delayed and the explanation provided was reasonable; condonation was granted. On the merits, the court held that the appellant failed to take all necessary steps to eliminate racial harassment as required by section 60 of the Employment Equity Act. The company relied solely on polygraph evidence, which was inconclusive and unsupported by direct evidence, and did not properly consult all relevant parties or investigate the incident. The criminal conviction of Van Zyl for using the 'K-word' was accepted as proof…
Source excerpt
Gerntholtz and Others v Pieterse N.O and Others (3958/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 51 (18 February 2025)
The High Court held a testamentary bequest to Boerelegioen-related entities void for vagueness and contrary to public policy, and ordered intestate succession.
Padayachee v Gauteng Department of Education (JS485/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 501; [2025] 4 BLLR 428 (LC) (1 December 2024)
The court found that the defendant's officials engaged in persistent and serious unwanted conduct towards the plaintiff, including unjustified claims of language and cultural barriers, ostracism, and the appointment of an auxiliary social worker without basis. This conduct amounted to harassment and unfair discrimination on the grounds of race, culture, ethnicity, and language, as prohibited by the Employment Equity Act. The defendant failed to take any meaningful steps to address the plaintiff's grievances or investigate the complaints, thereby rendering itself liable for the discriminatory…
Source excerpt
Mavundla v Frame Leisure Trading (Pty) Ltd (JS230/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 342; (2024) 45 ILJ 2756 (LC) (2 September 2024)
The Labour Court held that Mavundla’s dismissal was automatically unfair because race was the true reason, and awarded 24 months’ compensation.
Izaacs v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC 2018/206) [2023] ZALCC 30 (4 October 2023)
The court found that the Izaacs family was dispossessed of Erfs 408 and 409, Keimoes due to racially discriminatory practices by public officials, which prevented them from receiving reparations for livestock losses during the Afrikaner Rebellion. The requirements of the Restitution of Land Rights Act were satisfied. Compensation must be determined by starting with the market value at the time of dispossession, adjusted to current values using CPI, and then considering section 33 factors, including the hardship, indignity, and loss of dignity suffered by the family. The court rejected the pla…
Source excerpt
Engelbrecht v Department of Correctional Services and Others (CA 11/20) [2022] ZALAC 105; [2023] 1 BLLR 12 (LAC) (15 September 2022)
The Labour Appeal Court dismissed an appeal alleging racial discrimination and nepotism in promotion decisions at Correctional Services, finding the evidence was only suspicious.
Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others (EQ2/19) [2022] ZAEQC 1; [2022] 2 All SA 549 (GJ) (2 March 2022)
The court found that the comments made by the second and third respondents, which celebrated the deaths of white children and equated their lives to those of animals, constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act as amended by the Constitutional Court. The statements were objectively harmful, promoted racial hatred, and undermined the dignity of the victims and their families, as well as the constitutional project of nation-building. The respondents' defence of freedom of expression was rejected, as such rights do not protect advocacy of racial hatred or speech that incites…
Source excerpt
Strydom v Black First Land First (11/2018EQJHB) [2019] ZAEQC 1 (6 May 2019)
The Equality Court held that Black First Land First’s phrase “Land or Death” was hate speech, ordered its removal, and required a written apology.
Van der Westhuizen v Rieger (EL 500/2017) [2019] ZAECELLC 9 (7 March 2019)
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant did utter the words set out in the particulars of claim, including racially charged and vulgar insults, and did assault the plaintiff with pepper spray. The context and content of the words, particularly 'go back to Duncan Village' and 'poes', were held to be derogatory, racially loaded, and intended to humiliate, thereby impairing the plaintiff's dignity. The court rejected the defendant's version regarding the pepper spray and found the plaintiff's evidence, despite exaggerations, sufficient to discharge the onus. The cour…
Source excerpt
Explore more
