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
Fynn and Another v Subhash Maharaj and Company and Others (D4595/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 17 (5 May 2025)
Application for refund of a deposit after cancellation of a land-sale agreement dismissed on prescription and on disputed facts in motion proceedings.
Africa Wide Mineral Prospecting and Exploration (Pty) Ltd v Platinum Group Metals (RSA) (Pty) Ltd and Others (31329/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 407; 2023 (1) SA 98 (GJ) (14 June 2022)
The High Court held that a challenge to a scheme of arrangement must be brought under section 115 of the Companies Act, and dismissed Africa Wide’s claim.
Govender v Moobley and Another (315/2005, 8682/2008) [2014] ZAKZPHC 2 (22 January 2014)
High Court held the Road Accident Fund’s special plea failed after it delayed raising a statutory-bar defence and had already participated in consolidated proceedings.
Kopano Bus Service CC v Maruma (A620/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 112 (6 May 2013)
The High Court held that a statutory bar may competently be raised by special plea, and the magistrate erred by dismissing the plea without considering its merits.
Sanan v Eskom Holdings Limited (2010/16004) [2010] ZAGPJHC 90; 2010 (6) SA 638 (GSJ) (7 October 2010)
Section 35 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act No 130 of 1993 creates a complete statutory bar to any civil claim for damages by an employee against an employer for occupational injury or disease. The plaintiff's claim, based on alleged negligence resulting in mesothelioma, falls squarely within the ambit of the Act, which provides compensation for such occupational diseases. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd authoritatively confirmed that the statutory bar applies even where the employee may not be entitled to compensation under COIDA,…
Source excerpt
Etsebeth v Minister of Defence and Another (23698/2002) [2009] ZAGPPHC 151 (20 November 2009)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s helicopter flight was connected to his SANDF employment, so section 35 of COIDA barred his damages claim.
Explore more
