South Africa Case Law

National Health Laboratory Services v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2790/21)

National Health Laboratory Services v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2790/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 161 (7 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2790/21

Judge

Swartz

The Labour Court found that the commissioner's decision to reinstate Mr Molotsi without backpay and impose a final written warning was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The NHLS failed to reasonably accommodate Mr Molotsi, a highly vulnerable employee, during the COVID-19 pandemic, disregarding both its own policies and applicable regulations. The risk assessment was conducted improperly, and the NHLS rigidly adhered to its interpretation of internal policies without meaningful engagement with the employee's concerns. The commissioner correctly applied the principles of progressive di…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Covid 19 Workplace Accommodation
• Risk Assessment
• Substantive Fairness
• Employee Right To Refuse Work
• Progressive Discipline

Visigro Investments (Pty) Ltd v SFF Association (14906/2022)

Visigro Investments (Pty) Ltd v SFF Association (14906/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 356 (3 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14906/2022

Judge

Van den Berg

The application to amend the Notice of Motion is denied because the main application and the proposed amendment have become moot due to the passage of time and the completion of a new risk assessment by the first respondent. The relief sought in the amendment is overtaken by subsequent events and does not raise a triable issue supported by the original pleadings and evidence. Granting the amendment would require the filing of further affidavits on new facts and issues not ventilated in the main application, which is not in the interest of justice. The declaratory relief sought is hypothetical…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Major Hazard Installation Regulations
• Risk Assessment
• Mootness
• Declaratory Relief

Booysen v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (33188/2022)

Booysen v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (33188/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 205 (8 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33188/2022

Judge

Retief

The court found that the Minister's decision not to place Booysen on parole was rational and explicable. The Minister considered all relevant factors, including expert reports, recommendations, and the interests of the community. The risk factors for reoffending, particularly gang-related behaviour, remained unchanged and justified the decision. The Minister did not rely on the classified State Security Agency report for the impugned decision and properly applied his mind to the documentation before him. The court held that the procedural fairness challenge failed, as Booysen did not demonstr…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Parole Decision Review
• Procedural Fairness
• Rationality Of Administrative Action
• Risk Assessment
• Life Imprisonment

Motshwane v iWyze Valuables Insurance (87941/2016)

Motshwane v iWyze Valuables Insurance (87941/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 111 (26 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

87941/2016

Judge

N Davis

The High Court held that the insurer failed to prove material non-disclosure. A prior refusal to quote based on loss ratio was not shown to be material to the risk.

• Material Non Disclosure
• Insurance Contracts
• Short Term Insurance Act
• Risk Assessment
• Policy Avoidance
• Insurance-contracts

Kassel v Thompson Reuters (Markets) SA (16/34227)

Kassel v Thompson Reuters (Markets) SA (16/34227) [2018] ZAGPJHC 413; 2019 (1) SA 251 (GJ) (12 June 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16/34227

Judge

David Unterhalter

The High Court held that listing David Kassel as a politically exposed person was not defamatory and dismissed his application with costs.

• Defamation
• Interdict
• Politically Exposed Persons
• Editorial Guidelines
• Risk Assessment
• Politically-exposed-persons

Absa Idirect Limited v Valoyi (A703/14)

Absa Idirect Limited v Valoyi (A703/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 601 (22 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A703/14

Judges

J W Louw, V V Tlhapi

The High Court dismissed an insurer’s appeal, finding no material non-disclosure or misrepresentation by the insured when applying for cover.

• Insurance Contract
• Material Non Disclosure
• Misrepresentation
• Risk Assessment
• Policy Cancellation
• Insurance-contract

Van De Wetering Engineering (Edms) Bpk v Regent Insurance Company (4436/2010)

Van De Wetering Engineering (Edms) Bpk v Regent Insurance Company (4436/2010) [2013] ZAGPPHC 5 (11 January 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4436/2010

Judge

A.A. Louw

The High Court dismissed a claim under a contingency insurance policy after finding the insured event did not materialize and no indemnifiable loss was proved.

• Insurance Contracts
• Indemnity Principle
• Policy Exclusion
• Risk Assessment
• Insurance-contracts
• Indemnity-principle

Kelly v South African Petroleum Refineries (8265/2005)

Kelly v South African Petroleum Refineries (8265/2005) [2011] ZAKZDHC 29 (17 June 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

8265/2005

Judge

Swain

The court dismissed a damages claim arising from an electrical flashover at a refinery, finding the risk was not reasonably foreseeable and negligence was not proved.

• Duty Of Care
• Negligence
• Maintenance Of Premises
• Occupier Liability
• Risk Assessment
• Burden Of Proof

Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd v De Waal NO and Another (422/97)

Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd v De Waal NO and Another (422/97) [1999] ZASCA 66 (21 September 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

422/97

Judges

Van Heerden, Vivier, Harms, Marais, Scott

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that material misstatements in a life-insurance application justified dismissal of the estate’s claim under section 63(3).

• Insurance Contracts
• Misrepresentation
• Burden Of Proof
• Risk Assessment
• Insurance-contracts
• Burden-of-proof

South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. v Norman Welthagen Investments (Pty) Ltd. (335/92)

South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. v Norman Welthagen Investments (Pty) Ltd. (335/92) [1993] ZASCA 195; 1994 (2) SA 122 (AD); (30 November 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

335/92

Judges

Joubert, Hoexter, Smalberger, Nestadt, Vivier

The Appellate Division held that a policy warranty broken by the insured was not a representation under section 63(3) of the Insurance Act.

• Insurance Contracts
• Warranty Breach
• Statutory Interpretation
• Risk Assessment
• Insurance-law
• Warranty-breach