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
Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahuma and Others (2202/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 96 (23 May 2025)
The High Court confirmed a final interdict stopping blockade and interference with Glencore’s Rhovan operations and refused a costs order.
Durban University of Technology v Godlimpi and Others (D1411/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 66 (22 December 2020)
The court found that the applicant had established the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right to protect its property, staff, and students; injury in the form of violence, property damage, and disruption; and no alternative remedy, as security and police intervention had failed. The respondents' opposition was largely bare denials and did not meaningfully challenge the factual matrix. The relief sought did not infringe constitutional rights to protest or freedom of expression, as it was limited to preventing unlawful conduct and did not prohibit peaceful protest or attendance at le…
Source excerpt
Growthpoint Properties Ltd v All persons intending to occupy Erf 165639, Cape Town and Others (22326/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 80; [2019] 3 All SA 759 (WCC) (28 June 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts in its ex parte application, including the true nature of the protest, prior peaceful engagements, and established communication with the respondents' attorney. The applicant portrayed the occupation as a grave and imminent threat, omitting relevant context and misrepresenting the identities and intentions of those present. These omissions were material and could have influenced the granting of the interim order. The duty of utmost good faith in ex parte proceedings was breached, justifying the discharge of the rule nisi. Th…
Source excerpt
Students Representative Council of Rhodes University and Others v Rhodes University (1937/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 117 (24 March 2017)
Leave to appeal against limited interdicts at Rhodes University was refused, with costs. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
Rhodes University v Student Representative Council of Rhodes University and Others (1937/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 141; [2017] 1 All SA 617 (ECG) (1 December 2016)
The court found that the University had established a clear right to protect its property, staff, and students from unlawful conduct, and that injury had occurred or was reasonably apprehended. The protests went beyond peaceful demonstration, involving kidnapping, intimidation, and property damage. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Respondents were found to have participated in or associated themselves with unlawful conduct to varying degrees. However, the court held that the interim interdict was impermissibly broad and vague, particularly in its application to unnamed or ill-defined groups (Seco…
Source excerpt
Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town (730/2016) [2016] ZASCA 159; [2016] 4 All SA 723 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 485 (SCA) (20 October 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the university had established the requisites for a final interdict: its rights were infringed by the protest actions, the appellants were active participants in unlawful conduct, and there was a reasonable apprehension of recurrence in the absence of any undertaking to desist. The defence of necessity was rejected as it was not properly raised or substantiated, and the constitutional dispensation provides legal avenues for grievances. Alternative remedies such as disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges, or mediation were found inadequate to afford sim…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Limited v South African Clothing & Textile Workers Union and Others (3226/2014) [2014] ZAKZDHC 13 (11 April 2014)
The High Court granted ABSA an interim interdict against SACTWU over an unlawful protest, but refused relief against the cited office bearers and rejected a perimeter ban.
Explore more
