Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional Law [2024] ZAGPJHC 1099

Mahlangu v Minister Correctional Services and Others (2024/00413)

Mahlangu v Minister Correctional Services and Others (2024/00413) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1099 (25 October 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2024/00413
Judge
WJ du Plessis

The court found that the respondents had complied with the requirements of the Correctional Services Act and the Therapeutic Diet Manual by providing the applicant with a high-fibre diet, specifically sorghum porridge. There was insufficient evidence to establish contempt of the previous court order. However, the applicant's ongoing health complaints warranted further medical assessment. The court determined that the appropriate course was to order a consultation with a dietician, who could make a formal recommendation regarding the applicant's dietary needs. The court declined to order that…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Healthcare
  • Adequate Nutrition
  • Contempt Of Court
  • Correctional Services Act
  • Prisoners Rights
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2023] ZAWCHC 344

Van der Westhuizen and Others v Life Healthcare Holdings Group (Pty) Ltd and Others - Reasons (18544/2023; 9940/2023)

Van der Westhuizen and Others v Life Healthcare Holdings Group (Pty) Ltd and Others - Reasons (18544/2023; 9940/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 344 (13 November 2023)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
18544/2023; 9940/2023
Judge
Wille

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right to interim relief, as the termination of the third respondent's privileges would cause irreparable harm to cancer patients dependent on his specialized treatment. The hospital's decision, though made by a private entity, had significant public impact and thus qualified as administrative action subject to review. The hospital failed to follow its own protocols for dealing with alleged misconduct, opting for termination without prior intervention or warnings. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, as the harm to th…

Source excerpt

  • Interim Interdict
  • Administrative Action
  • Right To Healthcare
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Constitutional Rights
  • Hospital Privileges
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2023] ZAGPPHC 280

United Democratic Movement and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others

United Democratic Movement and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 280; 005779/2023 (5 May 2023)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
005779/2023
Judges
N Davis, C Collis, S Nyathi

The court found that loadshedding at public health establishments, schools, and police stations without sufficient alternative energy sources infringes constitutional rights to healthcare, education, and security. The State and its organs have breached both constitutional and statutory duties by failing to ensure uninterrupted electricity supply to these institutions. The applicants established a clear right and acts of interference, satisfying requirements for both interim and final interdicts. The court held that judicial intervention is justified and does not breach the separation of power…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Healthcare
  • Right To Education
  • Right To Security
  • Separation Of Powers
  • Interdicts
  • State Obligations
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZACC 18

TM obo MM v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng (CCT 270/21)

TM obo MM v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng (CCT 270/21) [2022] ZACC 18; 2023 (3) BCLR 315 (CC) (30 May 2022)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 270/21
Judges
Madlanga, Kollapen, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that the matter did not raise a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The pleadings did not establish a constitutional basis for the claim, and the dispute before the Court was limited to factual questions of negligence and causation, which do not engage the Court's jurisdiction. The legal duty and wrongfulness were admitted and not in dispute; thus, the only remaining issues were factual in nature. The Court reaffirmed that it will not entertain appeals that challenge only factual findings or the incorrect application of…

Source excerpt

  • Medical Negligence
  • Duty Of Care
  • Causation
  • Leave To Appeal
  • Right To Healthcare
  • Pleading Requirements
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2021] ZAGPJHC 686

Dlamini v Gauteng Department of Health: Member of the Executive Council and Another (2009/34279)

Dlamini v Gauteng Department of Health: Member of the Executive Council and Another (2009/34279) [2021] ZAGPJHC 686 (17 August 2021)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2009/34279
Judge
Matojane

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants were negligent or breached their legal duty of care. The evidence established that only one baby was delivered and that the diagnosis of a twin pregnancy was a misdiagnosis by the private radiologist. The court considered the credibility of witnesses, expert opinions, and the probabilities, concluding that there was no collusion among medical staff and no evidence of a missing twin. The plaintiff's version was inconsistent and contradicted by documentary and witness e…

Source excerpt

  • Medical Negligence
  • Right To Healthcare
  • Access To Information
  • Duty Of Care
  • Constitutional Damages
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2019] ZAGPJHC 379

A E v Chief Executive Officer Helen Joseph Hospital and Others (19/15448)

A E v Chief Executive Officer Helen Joseph Hospital and Others (19/15448) [2019] ZAGPJHC 379 (7 October 2019)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
19/15448
Judge
M A Makume

The court found that the applicant was not refused emergency medical treatment; she received all necessary care to stabilize her condition. The refusal to provide ongoing chronic dialysis was based on the hospital's policy and the National Health Act, which restricts such treatment to citizens and permanent residents due to resource constraints. The court held that the limitation of rights was reasonable and justifiable under section 36(1) of the Constitution, as the scarcity of resources necessitates prioritization. The exclusion of the applicant was not discriminatory but a lawful applicati…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Healthcare
  • Emergency Medical Treatment
  • Discrimination Against Foreigners
  • Allocation Of Medical Resources
  • National Health Act
  • Bill Of Rights Limitation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.