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
Constitutional Law [2023] ZACC 38

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22)

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22) [2023] ZACC 38; 2024 (1) SACR 343 (CC); 2024 (5) BCLR 653 (CC) (28 November 2023)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 146/22
Judges
Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the appropriate procedure for considering documents allegedly protected by legal professional privilege in the context of a permanent stay application is an in camera review. This strikes a balance between the constitutional principles of open justice and legal professional privilege. The Court found that requiring proof of privilege at the interlocutory stage prejudges a central issue and is not necessary for determining the procedure. The in camera process does not entail permanent secrecy, as records can be made public if privilege is not established. The…

Source excerpt

  • Legal Professional Privilege
  • Open Justice
  • In Camera Review
  • Superior Courts Act Section 32
  • Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2022] ZAECMKHC 128

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1824/2021)

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1824/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 128; 85 SATC 436 (12 April 2022)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Case number
1824/2021
Judge
M.J. Lowe

The court held that the applicants failed to establish any statutory basis for High Court hearings to be held in camera in matters enforcing section 46 of the Tax Administration Act. The confidentiality provisions of the TAA apply to SARS officials but permit disclosure in the course of official duties or where information is public. The applicants did not identify any specific confidential taxpayer information at risk nor demonstrate special circumstances justifying departure from open justice under section 32 of the Superior Courts Act. The practice in the Tax Court does not extend to High…

Source excerpt

  • Open Justice
  • Taxpayer Information Secrecy
  • In Camera Hearing
  • Superior Courts Act Section 32
  • Tax Administration Act Chapter 6
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.