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
Premier Eastern Cape Province v Mbananga (Application for Leave to Appeal) (PR265/22) [2025] ZALCPE 7 (4 April 2025)
The Labour Court granted condonation for a late leave-to-appeal application but dismissed the application, finding no prospects of success.
Fuels Industry Association of South Africa v Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and Others (2024/130293) [2025] ZAGPJHC 323 (21 March 2025)
The Minister's decisions to implement interim amendments to the Regulatory Accounting System and ring-fence the Entrepreneurial Compensation for retailers were taken in direct contravention of the High Court order in Fuel Retailers Association v Minister of Energy, which required maintenance of the status quo pending a comprehensive expert review and stakeholder consultation. The Minister failed to undertake the ordered review and instead imposed a new interim regime without consultation or expert input, undermining the rule of law and judicial authority. The court found that section 172(1)(b…
Source excerpt
Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Lawyers for Human Rights and Others (14238/21) [2025] ZAGPPHC 287 (20 March 2025)
The High Court extended a suspended declaration of invalidity over blocked identity numbers, dismissed a challenge to its authority, and ordered costs against the applicants.
Mothapo Royal Council and Others v Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (92/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 22 (14 February 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the interdictory relief sought. The Mothapo Royal Council is not a statutory administrative body and lacks lawful authority to issue letters for spaza shop permits. The Council, similarly, is not lawfully constituted under applicable legislation, and neither body can claim administrative powers. The affected spaza shop owners have no standing to dictate which letters the Municipality should accept. The leadership dispute within the traditional community remains unresolved, and the absence of a recognised council or senio…
Source excerpt
Democratic Alliance v City of Johannesburg and Others (052407/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1 (2 January 2025)
The High Court set aside a Johannesburg Council VIP protection policy and related allowances as unlawful, but suspended the invalidity for six weeks.
Gravett v Siyavuya Power Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (Reasons) (EL 358/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 50 (17 December 2024)
The High Court held that the respondent’s use of land breached title deed and zoning restrictions, and granted a final interdict, suspended until 20 December 2024.
Sithole v Dannhauser Local Municipality (D525/2024) [2024] ZALCD 47 (8 November 2024)
The Labour Court set aside a municipal manager’s precautionary suspension, finding the council had not validly voted on a resolution authorising it.
Maraba and Others v Head of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility (095695/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1080 (23 October 2024)
The High Court granted execution pending appeal, finding unlawful prisoner transfers, exceptional circumstances, and irreparable harm to the applicants.
MM v State Security Agency and Others (2024-066082) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1033 (30 September 2024)
The court found that section 21(3)(a) of the Government Employees Pension Fund Law does not empower the Agency to unilaterally determine and deduct alleged debts from an employee's pension benefits without due process or a court order. The Agency's interpretation was rejected as inconsistent with the text of the statute and constitutional principles, including the right to equality and access to courts. The court held that the Agency's conduct amounted to unlawful self-help, violating the rule of law and fundamental rights. The applicant had exhausted all internal remedies and faced immediate…
Source excerpt
Mayfield Clays (Pty) Ltd v Makana Local Municipality and Others (2219/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 96 (29 August 2024)
The court found that the respondents were aware of the order made by Pakati J on 31 October 2023 and had been properly served. There was no dispute regarding their non-compliance, and no evidence was presented to rebut the inference of wilfulness or mala fides. The respondents' last-minute attempts to address the contempt application were insufficient, and their failure to place any evidence before the court amounted to a further act of contempt. The requirements for committal for contempt of court were satisfied, and the respondents were afforded an opportunity to purge their contempt. The a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
