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
Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (Leave to Appeal) (00001/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 514 (26 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused because the underlying compulsory licence would have expired before any appeal could be heard, and no practical effect would follow.
Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sol Plaatje Local Municipality and Others (CCT 119/23) [2025] ZACC 1; 2025 (5) BCLR 505 (CC) (24 March 2025)
The Constitutional Court found that the High Court erred by limiting the retrospective effect of its order of invalidity to prospective operation only, thereby failing to properly balance the interests of the applicants and the municipality. The High Court focused solely on the municipality's fiscal interests and did not consider the substantial prejudice to Ekapa, which had paid rates at a lower ratio and faced unlawful charges. The evidence did not support the municipality's claims of disruptive financial consequences, and the delay in challenging the rates was not as extensive as the High…
Source excerpt
B.W.H v S.A.H (22802/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1348 (21 November 2023)
The High Court varied a Rule 43 order only to remove spousal maintenance, finding the respondent had not fully disclosed finances and was self-supporting.
PG Group Ltd and Others v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another (150/2017) [2018] ZASCA 56; 2018] 3 All SA 52 (SCA); 2018 (5) SA 150 (SCA) (10 May 2018)
NERSA’s gas-price methodology was held irrational and set aside. The Supreme Court of Appeal also rejected a delay objection and ordered retrospective relief.
Mulder v Mulder (A275/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 122 (1 February 2011)
Appeal dismissed against a maintenance increase and retrospective order. The court found no misdirection in the magistrate’s assessment of need or ability to pay.
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Mohamed NO and Others (CCT13/02) [2002] ZACC 9; 2002 (9) BCLR 970 (CC); 2002 (4) SA 843 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 196 (CC) (12 June 2002)
The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred by deciding the matter solely on the narrow procedural issue of section 38 and by issuing an incompetent order of notional severance to cure an omission. The correct approach, where a constitutional challenge is brought against a statutory provision, is to adjudicate all relief sought unless abandoned, and to use reading in as the remedy for omissions, not notional severance. The High Court failed to address the broader challenge to Chapter 6 of the Act, which remained a live issue. The Constitutional Court set aside the High Court's ord…
Source excerpt
Explore more
