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
Van Heerden NO and Others v Pretorious NO and Another (1220/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 169 (10 June 2025)
The High Court found the defendants breached a sheep rental agreement by failing to return 209 merino ewes, but dismissed claims for wool and progeny losses as too remote.
Sampson v Legal Aid South Africa (2201/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 49; (2023) 44 ILJ 422 (NCK) (2 September 2022)
The court held that the excipient (Legal Aid South Africa) failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are excipiable on every reasonable interpretation. The pleadings sufficiently encapsulate the necessary policy considerations and factual allegations to sustain a cause of action for psychiatric injury resulting from the assault on the plaintiff's husband, an employee of the defendant. The statutory bar under section 35(1) of COIDA cannot be determined on exception without evidence as to whether the injury was occupational. The pleaded causal nexus between the defendant's…
Source excerpt
Highflyer Properties (PTY) td v Franchkings (PTY) Ltd (40462/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 612 (29 August 2022)
High Court held the defendant repudiated a commercial lease, dismissed its deposit counterclaim, and found the plaintiff proved liability for damages.
KPMM Roads & Earthworks Projects (Pty) Ltd v Polokwane Local Municipality (2849/2020) [2022] ZALMPPHC 50 (11 August 2022)
The High Court upheld exceptions to counter-claims for special damages, finding missing averments on contemplation of loss at contracting rendered them vague and embarrassing.
Petropulos and Another v Dias (1055/2018) [2020] ZASCA 53; [2020] 3 All SA 358 (SCA); 2020 (5) SA 63 (SCA) (21 May 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the duty of lateral support between contiguous properties in South African law extends to both land and buildings, rejecting the English law restriction to land in its natural state. The court found that the excavation works on the first appellant's property breached this duty, causing the slope to mobilise and resulting in substantial damage to the respondent's property. The court accepted the evidence of the respondent's expert, which established a direct causal link between the excavation and the damage. Liability for deprivation of lateral support is…
Source excerpt
Meechan and Another v VGA Chartered Accountants Partnership t/a PKF (VGA) Chartered Accountants (7999/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 53; [2020] 2 All SA 510 (GJ) (28 February 2020)
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. The financial report relied upon by the plaintiffs was addressed solely to the members of the parent foundation, FMLAM, and did not mention FMLR or the plaintiffs. The alleged representations were not contained in the report, and the plaintiffs could not rely on extrinsic evidence to modify its meaning. The court found that no duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs, as there was no proximate relationship, dependence, or vulnerability; the plaintiffs, as…
Source excerpt
Frajenron (Pty) Ltd v Metcash Trading Limited and Others (10467/14; 15192/14) [2019] ZAGPJHC 428; 2020 (3) SA 210 (GJ) (25 October 2019)
High Court held Metcash was not excused by impossibility of performance after sub-letting to IH. Frajenron won damages; Metcash succeeded against IH and Motsoeneng.
Visser and Another v Moore (27676/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 426 (30 August 2019)
The High Court awarded damages after finding unlawful repudiation of a lease and disposal of assets that included tools needed for Visser’s carpentry business.
De Klerk v Minister of Police (CCT 95/18) [2019] ZACC 32; 2019 (12) BCLR 1425 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 1 (CC); 2021 (4) SA 585 (CC) (22 August 2019)
The Constitutional Court held that the Minister of Police is liable for the applicant's entire period of detention following his unlawful arrest, including the period after his first court appearance. The majority reasoned that legal causation, not merely the lawfulness of the subsequent detention, determines liability. The arresting officer subjectively foresaw the applicant's further detention as a direct consequence of her unlawful arrest, and the chain of causation was not broken by the magistrate's mechanical remand order, which lacked genuine judicial discretion. Public policy considera…
Source excerpt
De Klerk v Minister of Police (329/17) [2018] ZASCA 45; [2018] 2 All SA 597 (SCA); 2018 (2) SACR 28 (SCA) (28 March 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's arrest was unlawful because the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that a Schedule 1 offence had been committed, as required by section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The wound inflicted did not meet the threshold of a 'dangerous wound' as interpreted by case law, and the officer failed to investigate the nature and seriousness of the injury. The court held that the police were only liable for the period of detention prior to the appellant's first appearance in court, as the subsequent detention resulted…
Source excerpt
Explore more
