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
Civil Procedure [2025] ZALMPPHC 72

Zelolo v Anglo American Platinum Mogalakwena Mine (9395/2022)

Zelolo v Anglo American Platinum Mogalakwena Mine (9395/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 72 (16 April 2025)

Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
9395/2022
Judge
Kganyago

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were poorly drafted, failing to distinguish clearly between claims for compensation under statute and damages under delict. The use of 'compensation' and 'damages' interchangeably created confusion as to the legal basis of the claim. The court held that OHSA does not apply to mines and that non-compliance with OHSA only gives rise to criminal, not civil, liability. The particulars of claim did not adequately plead the elements of delict, specifically wrongfulness and causation. The quantum of damages was not set out with sufficient par…

Source excerpt

  • Exception Procedure
  • Occupational Health And Safety
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries
  • Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
  • Quantum Of Damages
  • Wrongfulness And Negligence
Read case analysis
Delict [2023] ZALMPPHC 15

Leopiet Ontwikkeling (Pty) Ltd v Lephalale Municipality (7355/20)

Leopiet Ontwikkeling (Pty) Ltd v Lephalale Municipality (7355/20) [2023] ZALMPPHC 15 (23 March 2023)

Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
7355/20
Judge
R.P Mdhluli

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to disclose a cause of action in respect of wrongfulness and negligence, which are essential elements for delictual liability. The statutes relied upon, namely the Municipal Structures Act and the Constitution, do not provide a basis for the relief sought, and only NEMA may be relevant if properly pleaded. The plaintiff did not allege the necessary causal link, wrongfulness, or negligence, nor did it set out steps taken to mitigate damages as required by law. The exception was upheld, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend…

Source excerpt

  • Municipal Liability
  • Nema Section 28
  • Wrongfulness And Negligence
  • Exception To Particulars Of Claim
  • Damages For Environmental Harm
Read case analysis
Delict [2015] ZASCA 75

Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014)

Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 75; 2015 (4) SA 574 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 288 (SCA) (27 May 2015)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
20134/2014
Judges
Brand, Cachalia, Petse, Fourie, Mayat

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, as owner and operator of the mountain reserve, were in control of property presenting a risk of serious harm to visitors. The danger posed by concealed ice and the proximity of a sheer precipice was not clear and apparent to the unwary, as evidenced by the direct testimony of witnesses and expert opinion. The respondents failed to take reasonable, cost-effective precautionary measures—such as warning signs, barriers, and induction briefings—which would likely have prevented the incident. The court found that the element of wrongfulness wa…

Source excerpt

  • Dependants Claim For Loss Of Support
  • Wrongfulness And Negligence
  • Causation
  • Dangerous Property
  • Duty Of Care
  • Reasonable Precautionary Measures
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.