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
Janse Van Rensburg v South African Legal Practice Council (5946/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 11 (17 March 2025)
Urgent interlocutory application to compel disclosure was struck off for lack of urgency and because discovery in motion proceedings requires leave of court.
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Ngubeni (A12/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 42 (26 January 2022)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements under PAIA by sending the request to an incorrect fax number and not directing it to the designated information officer. The respondent did not provide sufficient evidence in his founding affidavit to show that the request reached the correct office or that the information was required for the exercise or protection of a right. The respondent also failed to explain how the requested documents would assist in his delictual claim. The court found that mere dispatch of the request to the wrong fax numbe…
Source excerpt
AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa (55578/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 813; [2022] 1 All SA 706 (GP) (2 December 2021)
The High Court held the Executive Ethics Code unconstitutional insofar as it failed to require disclosure of donations to internal party campaign funding.
South African History Archive Trust v South African Reserve Bank and Another (17/19) [2020] ZASCA 56; [2020] 3 All SA 380 (SCA); 2020 (6) SA 127 (SCA); 2020 (12) BCLR 1427 (SCA) (29 May 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the SARB failed to comply with section 47 of PAIA by not taking any reasonable steps to inform Messrs Palazzolo and Hill of the information request. The SARB's reliance on section 49(2) was misplaced, as the empowering provisions for making a decision under that section were not met. The refusal of access to records relating to Brigadier Blaauw, Mr Palazzolo, and Mr Hill was unlawful and ultra vires PAIA. The SARB did not establish factual grounds for refusal under sections 34(1), 36(1), 37(1), or 42(1), and its approach was obstructive and contrary to th…
Source excerpt
Mahaeeane and Another v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (85/2016) [2017] ZASCA 90; [2017] 3 All SA 458 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 382 (SCA) (7 June 2017)
The majority held that the appellants failed to meet the threshold under section 50(1) of PAIA, as the records requested were not reasonably required for the exercise or protection of their right to claim damages. The court found that the appellants already possessed sufficient information to formulate their claims and that the request was aimed at evaluating the prospects of success rather than exercising the right itself. Furthermore, the certification application constituted the commencement of civil proceedings, triggering section 7(1) of PAIA and making the discovery rules applicable. As…
Source excerpt
Afriforum v Emadleni Municipality (A286/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 510 (27 May 2016)
The High Court held that a municipality could not refuse a PAIA request on technical or unsupported grounds and ordered disclosure, with costs against the municipality.
PFE International Inc (BVI) and Others v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (CCT 129/11) [2012] ZACC 21; 2013 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2013 (1) BCLR 55 (CC) (27 September 2012)
The Constitutional Court held that Rule 38(1) of the Uniform Rules, not PAIA, governed access to records sought for pending civil proceedings.
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd (CCT 03/11) [2011] ZACC 32; 2012 (2) BCLR 181 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 50 (CC) (29 November 2011)
The Constitutional Court held that the High Court should have invoked section 80 of PAIA to examine the report itself, given the unique constraints faced by both parties in presenting and refuting evidence regarding the exemptions claimed. The state argued its hands were tied by statutory provisions prohibiting reference to the record's contents, while the respondent could not challenge assertions about the report without access to it. The Court found that the interests of justice required the High Court to examine the report to determine the validity of the exemptions and the lawfulness of t…
Source excerpt
La Lucia Sands Share Block Ltd and Others v Barkhan and Others (37/2010) [2010] ZASCA 132; 2010 (6) SA 421 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 26 (SCA) (1 October 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 113 of the Companies Act provides a clear statutory right for any person, including non-members, to inspect and obtain copies of a company's register of members. The company cannot require the requester to provide reasons, and the right is not limited unless the request is for an unlawful purpose, which was not established in this case. The argument that share block schemes deserve greater privacy protection was rejected, as the statutory provisions apply equally. The constitutional challenge to section 113 was abandoned, and the court reaffirmed…
Source excerpt
Dlusha v King Sabatha Dalindyebo Municipality and Others (1494/09) [2010] ZAECMHC 27 (18 March 2010)
High Court held that the municipality’s failure to answer a PAIA request was a deemed refusal and dismissed its special plea of unexhausted internal remedies.
Explore more
