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
Motsoeneng v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 80; 2025 (4) SA 122 (SCA) (27 May 2024)
The SCA dismissed Motsoeneng’s condonation application for a late appeal, holding that no exceptional circumstances justified reconsideration under s 17(2)(f).
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohapi and Others (1754/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 249 (30 September 2021)
The High Court confirmed POCA restraint orders against the defendants, discharged the order against one respondent, dismissed a counterapplication, and made no costs order.
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Erastyle (Pty) Ltd and Others (398/2016) [2018] ZAECPEHC 61; 2019 (3) SA 559 (ECP) (6 November 2018)
The court held that Rule 53 is not a mandatory procedure for a municipality seeking to review its own decisions, especially where the decision-maker is in possession of the record and reasons. The procedural benefits conferred by Rule 53 are intended for parties without access to the record, and can be waived by the applicant. The plaintiff had properly pleaded its case and given notice to affected parties, satisfying the requirements for review. Section 32(2)(b) of the MFMA does not preclude recovery of irregular expenditure unless the expenditure has been certified as irrecoverable and writ…
Source excerpt
Bonitas Medical Fund v Louis Pasteur Hospital Holdings (Pty) Ltd (50820/2008) [2016] ZAGPPHC 723 (18 August 2016)
The court held that insurance policies ceded for hospital funding remained Bonitas’s beneficial property and ordered payment of the proceeds, interest, and punitive costs.
Hyprop Investments Limited and Another v NSC Carriers and Forwarding CC and Another (2009/12568, 2009/47543) [2010] ZAGPJHC 20 (12 April 2010)
The court found that the respondents failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation by the applicants. The lease agreements contained entire agreement and exemption clauses, which precluded reliance on prior representations and claims for compensation for improvements. The respondents' alleged rescission was not exercised within a reasonable time, and their continued occupation after cancellation constituted unlawful enrichment. The defence of ius retentionis was contractually excluded, and the alleged illegality under the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act did not render…
Source excerpt
Explore more
