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 903

Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024)

Zuma and Another v South African Broadcasting Corporation and Others (077748/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 903 (30 August 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
077748/2024
Judge
S Yacoob

The court found that the applicants failed to establish sufficient urgency to warrant hearing the matter on the urgent roll. While the applicants alleged ongoing constitutional violations by the SABC, the court held that the urgency was not adequately substantiated, particularly given the applicants' own indication that the matter was of such importance as to merit a special allocation to a Full Court. The court also noted procedural shortcomings, including the absence of a Rule 16A notice, which is necessary for constitutional matters potentially affecting third parties. The SABC's delays an…

Source excerpt

  • Media Freedom
  • Public Broadcasting Obligations
  • Urgent Interdict
  • Review Under Paja
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Just And Equitable Relief
Read case analysis
Constitutional Law [2024] ZAWCHC 171

AS v Minister of Health and Others; BM and Another v Minister of Health and Others (441&442/2023)

AS v Minister of Health and Others; BM and Another v Minister of Health and Others (441&442/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 171 (19 June 2024)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
441&442/2023
Judge
D.S Kusevitsky

The Court found that the Applicants' conduct throughout the litigation was vexatious, professionally unbecoming, and amounted to an abuse of the court process. The Applicants disregarded multiple court orders, failed to communicate with the Respondents and the Court, and caused unnecessary costs and inconvenience. Their withdrawal of the applications was not accompanied by sufficient or cogent reasons to avoid a costs order, and their actions showed absolute disregard for court time and resources. The Biowatch principle does not immunize litigants from adverse costs where their conduct is vex…

Source excerpt

  • Surrogacy Legislation
  • Artificial Fertilization
  • Costs In Constitutional Litigation
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Withdrawal Of Application
  • Attorney Client Costs
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2024] ZAGPPHC 503

De Jager v Netcare Limited (42041/16)

De Jager v Netcare Limited (42041/16) [2024] ZAGPPHC 503 (23 May 2024)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
42041/16
Judge
M P Motha

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

  • Right To Privacy
  • Admissibility Of Surveillance Evidence
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Amicus Curiae
  • Damages Quantification
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2020] ZAGPJHC 171

Minerals Council South Africa v Minister of Mineral Resources and Another (20341/19)

Minerals Council South Africa v Minister of Mineral Resources and Another (20341/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 171 (30 June 2020)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
20341/19
Judges
D Mlambo, B Vally, E van der Schyff

The Court found that the community organisations and social partner parties identified by the respondents possess direct and substantial legal interests in the outcome of the review application, as the 2018 Mining Charter confers specific rights upon them. The interests of these parties are not mere hopes or expectations (spes), but legal rights that would be destroyed if the challenged clauses were set aside. The rule 16A notice does not cure the defect of non-joinder, as it does not ensure proper identification, service, or participation of necessary parties. The Court held that justice req…

Source excerpt

  • Non Joinder
  • Mining Charter
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Direct And Substantial Interest
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Community Rights
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2020] ZAGPPHC 301

Minerals Council South Africa v Minister of Mineral Resources and Another (20341/19; 43806/19)

Minerals Council South Africa v Minister of Mineral Resources and Another (20341/19; 43806/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 301; [2020] 4 All SA 150 (GP) (30 June 2020)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
20341/19; 43806/19
Judges
D Mlambo, B Vally, E van der Schyff

The Court held that the community organisations and social partner parties identified by the respondents have a direct and substantial legal interest in the outcome of the review application, as the rights conferred upon them by the 2018 Mining Charter would be destroyed if the applicant succeeded. The rule 16A notice does not cure the defect of non-joinder, as it does not guarantee participation or protection of interests, and admission as amicus curiae would not afford the same rights as joinder. The Court found that justice requires these parties to be joined to the proceedings to ensure a…

Source excerpt

  • Non Joinder
  • Mining Charter
  • Review Of Administrative Action
  • Direct And Substantial Interest
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Empowerment Charter
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2013] ZAKZDHC 27

Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012)

Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 27 (8 May 2013)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
2604/2012
Judge
Ndlovu

The court found that the applicant was entitled to relief as the first respondent had erected an advertising sign and supporting structures without authorisation, in contravention of municipal bylaws and national legislation. The first respondent's constitutional challenge was not properly before the court due to persistent and deliberate non-compliance with rule 16A(1), which is a peremptory procedural requirement. The explanation for the late filing of the rule 16A notice was neither valid nor bona fide, and condonation was refused. The applicant's own late filing of its answering/replying…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Bylaws
  • Third Party Advertising
  • Constitutional Compliance
  • Rule 16a Notice
  • Condonation
  • Commercial Speech
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.