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
Aspen Holdings Pty Ltd and Another v Phelane and Another (JA 71/23) [2025] ZALAC 4; [2025] 4 BLLR 409 (LAC) (23 January 2025)
The Labour Appeal Court refused condonation for a late statement of case, holding that the employee failed to explain the full delay and could not rely on prospects alone.
Sandvliet Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Mampies and Another (107/2018) [2019] ZASCA 100; [2019] 3 All SA 709 (SCA); 2019 (6) SA 409 (SCA) (8 July 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents had the right under s 6(2)(dA) of ESTA to bury the deceased in the Middel-Plaas graveyard. The court found that the meaning of 'reside' for purposes of ESTA is not limited to the cadastral boundaries of registered land or the physical location of the dwelling, but must be interpreted contextually and purposively to include routine acts and established practices relating to the land, such as burial. The respondents and their family had, over decades, routinely buried their deceased kin in the Middel-Plaas graveyard with the owner's consent,…
Source excerpt
Pillay v KwaZulu-Natal MEC of Education (AR791/05) [2006] ZAKZHC 8; 2006 (10) BCLR 1237 (N) (5 July 2006)
The High Court held that banning a Hindu learner from wearing a nose stud at school was unfair discrimination and declared the prohibition invalid.
Pillay v Kwazulu-Natal MEC of Education, Cronje and Others (AR 791/05) [2006] ZAEQC 1; 2006 (6) SA 363 (EqC) (5 July 2006)
The court found that the school code of conduct, by prohibiting the wearing of a nose stud for cultural and religious reasons, constituted unfair discrimination against the appellant, her daughter, and their group. The evidence established that the nose stud is of significant cultural and religious importance in South Indian Hindu tradition. The code of conduct failed to reasonably accommodate diversity and was inconsistent with the Constitution, the Equality Act, and the Schools Act. The court emphasised that substantive equality requires recognition and accommodation of difference, and that…
Source excerpt
Explore more
