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
2 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
Labour Law [2011] ZALCJHB 19

Joubert v Legal Aid South Africa (JS240/2010)

Joubert v Legal Aid South Africa (JS240/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 19; (2011) 32 ILJ 1921 (LC) (16 March 2011)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS240/2010
Judge
Van Niekerk

The applicant failed to establish that the respondent had adopted a term and condition of employment entitling him to a post-retirement medical aid benefit (PRMAB), nor that such a term was approved by the Minister of Justice acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance as required by section 8 of the Legal Aid Act. The evidence showed that public service terms were not automatically adopted by the respondent; each term required specific board approval and ministerial consent. The applicant conceded that the necessary criteria for adoption and approval of PRMAB were not met. The plea o…

Source excerpt

  • Terms And Conditions Of Employment
  • Public Service Comparison
  • Post Retirement Medical Aid Benefit
  • Statutory Body Powers
  • Estoppel Against Statutory Body
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2008] ZASCA 78

National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Openshaw (462/07)

National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Openshaw (462/07) [2008] ZASCA 78; [2008] 4 All SA 225 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 339 (SCA) (30 May 2008)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
462/07
Judges
Farlam, Cameron, Heher, Hurt, Mhlantla

The court held that the appellant forfeited its right to interim relief due to its delay in instituting the principal action to which the interdict was ancillary. The application for final relief was launched in July 2006, but the appellant failed to institute the action for over 19 months, causing prejudice to the respondent. On the merits, the court found that the evidence only indicated a single contravention of section 2(1)(g) of the Animal Protection Act and did not establish a reasonable apprehension of ongoing or future harm. The respondent's detailed explanation of his modus operandi…

Source excerpt

  • Interim Interdict
  • Animal Welfare Legislation
  • Reasonable Apprehension Of Harm
  • Delay In Instituting Action
  • Mootness
  • Statutory Body Powers
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.