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
Okoye and Another v Lockyer and Others (2022/43051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 623 (9 July 2024)
High Court eviction matter under PIE. The court ordered unlawful occupiers to vacate by 31 January 2025, with TEA assessments and accommodation obligations for qualifying occupiers.
Redefine Properties Ltd v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (29258/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 62; 2023 (1) SA 226 (GP) (9 February 2022)
The court found that, pending completion of the vesting process and registration by the Registrar of Deeds, the National Government remains the owner of the Adjacent Property and retains all attendant rights and obligations. The applicant established the existence of a private nuisance emanating from the Adjacent Property, which interferes unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of its own property. The National Government, as owner, is obliged to abate the nuisance. However, the court declined to order eviction proceedings, instead directing the National Government to remediate the nuisance…
Source excerpt
Herbert NO and Others v Senqu Municipality and Others (2457/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 45 (19 May 2020)
The court found that the Trust and its predecessors were not the targets of racially discriminatory legislation and did not suffer dispossession or denial of access to land. Instead, they benefited from the system, occupying land for profit and facilitating migrant labour. The purpose of the Upgrading Act, as established by Constitutional Court authority, is to provide secure tenure and redress to Africans disadvantaged by apartheid-era laws. The Trust does not fall within the class of persons for whom the Act was enacted. Accordingly, the Trust is not entitled to claim conversion of its perm…
Source excerpt
District Six Commitee and Others v Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform and Others (LCC54/2018) [2019] ZALCC 15; 2019 (5) SA 164 (LCC) (20 March 2019)
The Land Claims Court held that delays in District Six restitution breached constitutional and statutory duties, granted declaratory relief, and awarded costs.
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Link Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (6859/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 166; [2014] 2 All SA 559 (GP) (27 March 2014)
The court held that sections 22 and 24 of the Electronic Communications Act confer statutory rights on ECNS licensees to construct and maintain electronic communications networks on public and private land, including municipal infrastructure, without requiring the landowner's consent. The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in MTN v SMI Trading CC is binding and directly applicable, rejecting the City's argument for a consent requirement. The Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations do not override the ECA, and the statutory regime applies equally to public and private land. The City's review appl…
Source excerpt
Bakhatla Basesfikile Community Development Association obo Descendents of Molefe Molemi and Others v Bakgatla ba Kgafela Tribal Authority and Others (320/11) [2011] ZANWHC 66 (1 December 2011)
The court found that the Bakgatla-Ba-Sesfikile Community is not a juristic person but may be cited as an association under Rule 14, granting it locus standi to bring the application. The Farm in question was purchased by the forebears of the applicants but, due to discriminatory laws, was registered in the name of the Chief in trust for the Bakgatla Tribe. The Farm is now held in trust for the Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela Community, which comprises 32 sub-villages, including the applicants. The Communal Land Rights Act applies to the Farm, and ownership vests in the community on whose behalf it is hel…
Source excerpt
De Kock v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry and Others (CCT 30/05) [2005] ZACC 12; 2005 (12) BCLR 1183 (CC) (26 September 2005)
The Constitutional Court refused direct access in an environmental-rights case, finding the applicant had not met Rule 18 requirements, though it noted the matter’s public interest.
Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT19/02) [2002] ZACC 26; 2003 (1) BCLR 14 ; 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC) (28 November 2002)
The Constitutional Court held that the Minister of Safety and Security is not vicariously liable for the theft committed by the three police officers, as they were not acting in the course and scope of their employment but were pursuing their own interests. The appellant's constitutional right to property under section 25 was not engaged, as the deprivation was caused by private robbers and not by state action. The duties imposed on the police by the Constitution did not extend liability to the respondent in these circumstances. The common law test for vicarious liability is consistent with t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
