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
KM v Minister of Police and Others (1471/2025) [2025] ZANCHC 53 (13 June 2025)
An urgent application by a murder eyewitness for monetary relief and special protection failed; the court held witness protection is a statutory remedy outside SAPS control.
Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1164 (19 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict against 방송 of footage of a businessman was acquired by ruse, finding no clear right and that damages were an adequate remedy.
Transasia 1 (Pty) Ltd v Sherif of the High Court and Others (Leave to Appeal) (10895/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 91 (22 October 2024)
The court found that the Sheriff acted within the scope of a valid court order authorising the attachment and removal of the caterpillar wherever it was found. The Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for the alleged limitation of its fundamental rights, and the constitutional issues raised were not substantiated on the papers. The wording of the order was standard and accepted by all parties, and the Sheriff was not required to seek further court approval to enter the premises. The facts of the cited constitutional cases were distinguishable, as they dealt with legislation rather th…
Source excerpt
Munetsi v Madhuyu and Another (16255/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 209 (6 August 2024)
The respondents breached section 11 of the Protection of Personal Information Act by publishing the applicant's cell phone number on social media platforms, constituting unlawful processing of personal information. This conduct also infringed the applicant's right to privacy under the common law and the Constitution. The publication of the video referring to the applicant as "evil" was defamatory and not justified by any defence advanced by the respondents. The applicant is entitled to a final interdict directing the removal of the offending broadcast and prohibiting future publication of his…
Source excerpt
De Jager v Netcare Limited (42041/16) [2024] ZAGPPHC 503 (23 May 2024)
The court held that the plaintiff's objection to the surveillance evidence raised a constitutional issue regarding the right to privacy under section 14 of the Constitution. However, the procedural requirements of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court had not been complied with, as no notice of the constitutional issue had been given to the registrar to afford interested parties the opportunity to be admitted as amicus curiae. The court determined that it was not in the interests of justice to dispense with Rule 16A and directed that the plaintiff comply with the rule within seven days. The…
Source excerpt
CEA v MB (D4460/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 26 (17 May 2024)
The High Court interdicted a former husband from publishing or sharing CCTV footage of his ex-wife’s private sexual encounter and ordered punitive costs for his conduct.
Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another (115176/2023; 115375/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 457 (15 May 2024)
The court found that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to challenge the legality and constitutionality of Rule 19.09, which imposes continuous CCTV monitoring on licensed tobacco warehouses. The implementation of the rule, particularly as extended by SARS's notice to include storage areas not covered by the rule, creates a risk of overreach and irreparable harm to the applicants' privacy and proprietary interests. The court held that the balance of convenience favours the applicants, as SARS failed to show urgency or harm from delayed implementation, and the applicants are tax c…
Source excerpt
Ndamase v Commissioner: Private Inquiry into the affairs of SNS Holdings (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (2023-019694) [2024] ZAGPPHC 407 (13 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a review of a s 417 and 418 company inquiry summons, holding the requested documents were relevant and no bias or privacy breach was shown.
SACCAWU obo Dlamini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2281/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 180 (29 April 2024)
The Labour Court set aside a CCMA award, finding the commissioner relied on irrelevant threats evidence, failed to prove the charge, and ignored sanction.
Enever v Barloworld Equipment South Africa, A Division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JA86/22) [2024] ZALAC 12; [2024] 6 BLLR 562 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1554 (LAC) (23 April 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the respondent's zero-tolerance policy prohibiting cannabis use, regardless of impairment or risk, was overbroad and irrational as applied to office-based employees who do not operate dangerous machinery. The policy violated the appellant's right to privacy by penalising conduct in her private life that had no effect on her work performance or workplace safety. The use of blood tests without evidence of impairment constituted an unjustifiable invasion of dignity and privacy. The differentiation between alcohol and cannabis users was arbitrary, as alcohol diss…
Source excerpt
Explore more
