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
3 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
Civil Procedure [2023] ZACC 35

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22)

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22) [2023] ZACC 35; 2024 (2) BCLR 238 (CC) (14 November 2023)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 183/22
Judges
Zondo, Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in applying the 'once and for all' rule to bar a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution where the claims for unlawful arrest/detention and malicious prosecution are distinct causes of action with different legal elements. The application of the rule in this context amounted to a development of the common law, which was not undertaken in accordance with the Constitution. The courts failed to consider whether the rule suffered any deficiency at odds with the Bill of Rights, particularly section 34, which gua…

Source excerpt

  • Once And For All Rule
  • Malicious Prosecution
  • Unlawful Arrest And Detention
  • Section 34 Access To Courts
  • Development Of Common Law
  • Prescription
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2022] ZAGPPHC 172

K Malao Inc and Others v Minister of Transport and Others (43422/20)

K Malao Inc and Others v Minister of Transport and Others (43422/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 172 (31 March 2022)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
43422/20
Judge
Neukircher

The court held that the applicants, as firms of attorneys, failed to establish locus standi to challenge the appointment of the CEO of the Road Accident Fund. Their mandate is limited to representing clients in claims against the RAF, and they did not join any clients or provide mandates authorising them to act in this matter. The right to enforce judgments and costs lies with the plaintiff or judgment creditor, not the attorney. The applicants did not demonstrate any direct or substantial interest, nor did they show that their constitutional rights under sections 22 or 34 were infringed by t…

Source excerpt

  • Locus Standi
  • Section 34 Access To Courts
  • Section 22 Trade And Profession
  • Appointment Of Public Officials
  • Contingency Fee Agreements
  • Review Of Administrative Action
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2021] ZACC 26

Union for Police Security and Corrections Organisation v South African Custodial Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 192/20)

Union for Police Security and Corrections Organisation v South African Custodial Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 192/20) [2021] ZACC 26; 2021 (11) BCLR 1249 (CC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2371 (CC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1173 (CC) (7 September 2021)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 192/20
Judges
Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, as it concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a collective agreement, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCMA under section 24 of the LRA. The applicant's reliance on Fredericks was misplaced, as the Labour Court's jurisdiction is not extended by section 34 of the Constitution in these circumstances. However, the Labour Court erred in awarding costs against the applicant in the application for leave to appeal. The established principle is that costs d…

Source excerpt

  • Costs In Labour Matters
  • Collective Agreement Jurisdiction
  • Section 23 Rights
  • Section 34 Access To Courts
  • Law And Fairness Standard
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2017] ZAECMHC 33

Intsika Yethu Local Municipality v Unlawful persons unlawfully erecting structures on and unlawfully occupying that portion of remainder erf 1, Cofimvaba just next to Nyandeni Township and Another (3303/2014)

Intsika Yethu Local Municipality v Unlawful persons unlawfully erecting structures on and unlawfully occupying that portion of remainder erf 1, Cofimvaba just next to Nyandeni Township and Another (3303/2014) [2017] ZAECMHC 33 (12 September 2017)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Case number
3303/2014
Judge
Jolwana

The court found that the respondents' Rule 6(11) and Rule 41(1)(c) applications were not irregular proceedings under Rule 30, as the eviction application remained pending and substantive issues, including ownership of the land and alleged constitutional rights violations, had not been resolved. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the eviction application was moot or a 'dead letter', noting that the rescission of the default order restored the status quo ante and required the court to consider the rights and remedies sought by the respondents. The factual and legal submissions in…

Source excerpt

  • Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings
  • Eviction
  • Rescission Of Default Judgment
  • Constitutional Right To Housing
  • Section 34 Access To Courts
  • Restoration Of Status Quo
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.