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
J.W. v J.D. and Others (039454/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 731 (24 July 2025)
The High Court discharged a rule nisi challenging a search warrant for electronic devices seized in a child sexual assault investigation.
Yossi Barel v Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (23 June 2025)
The majority held that counterfeiting under South African law requires more than mere trademark infringement; it demands a deliberate and fraudulent intent to deceive or pass off goods as those of another. Popular Trading's goods were authentic, sourced directly from the original Italian manufacturer, and lacked any intent to deceive the public or pass off the goods as those of Mr Barel. The evidence did not establish that Popular Trading intended its goods to be confused with or taken as being Mr Barel's goods. Mere knowledge of Mr Barel's trademark registration did not convert the continued…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions (Gauteng Division) v Thato Molefe and Another (417/2024) [2025] ZASCA 67 (26 May 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defects in the search warrant—incorrect address and failure to name specific officers—were technical and not flagrant violations of constitutional rights. The police acted in good faith, sought judicial authority, and the evidence seized was real and highly probative. There was no coercion or deliberate disregard for the respondents' rights. The evidence could have been lawfully obtained under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Admission of the evidence would not render the trial unfair or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The…
Source excerpt
Biskit (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (6156/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 71 (13 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed a review of SARS’s seizure of cigarettes, holding the applicant failed to prove excise duty had been paid and the seizure was fair.
Lombard v Fort Hare University and Another (154/2024) [2025] ZAECMKHC 24 (11 March 2025)
The court ordered return of cattle seized by police without satisfying warrantless-search requirements, but also barred the applicant from disposing of them for six months.
Dhoda and Others v Minister of Police and Others (2025/006880) [2025] ZAGPJHC 57 (30 January 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent application off the roll after finding the applicants had not shown urgency in seeking return of seized devices and deletion of information.
Neffex (Pty) Ltd and Another v Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd and Others (2024/095671) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1356 (31 December 2024)
The court granted partial urgent relief in a spoliation and warrant-execution dispute, staying the warrant and ordering production of the SAP 13 register.
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited and Others v Universal Acceptances (Pty) Limited and Others (2023/026522) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1256 (2 December 2024)
The court held that information or knowledge, regardless of its confidentiality, is not recognised as property in South African law and cannot be subject to attachment pendente lite. The ex parte search and seizure order was incompetent as it authorised the seizure and destruction of information without sufficient specificity or procedural safeguards, resulting in an unjustifiable invasion of the Respondents' privacy. The Applicants failed to identify specific information in the Respondents' possession and the order was excessively broad, amounting to a fishing expedition. The interdict sough…
Source excerpt
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
Alliance Fuel (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (Reasons) (2024/084746) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1044; [2024] 4 All SA 759 (GJ) (15 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed a spoliation and access challenge to SARS’s detention of fuel premises, finding defective statutory notice and lawful restriction under section 88.
Explore more
