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
City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd (40135/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 582 (5 June 2025)
The High Court granted the City of Johannesburg leave to appeal against a prior delict judgment and corrected the mora interest order to run from judgment.
Better Sails Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Turner and Others (8984 / 2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 109 (31 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim concerning pure economic loss, wrongfulness, and standing to seek a delinquent-director order.
Breetzke and Others NNO v Alexander NO and Others (232/2019) [2020] ZASCA 97; [2020] 4 All SA 374 (GP); 2020 (6) SA 360 (SCA) (2 September 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a company which knowingly participates in a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty, and benefits from that breach, is liable in delict to the beneficiaries for losses arising from the breach. The court found that the allegation of knowing participation suffices to plead wrongfulness, and that the particulars of claim against Ziningi Properties (Pty) Ltd were not excipiable. The court relied on established authority, including Yorkshire Insurance and Gross v Pentz, confirming that joint liability arises where a third party knowingly aids or facilitates a breac…
Source excerpt
Grindrod Intermodal, a Division of Grindrod (South Africa) (Pty) Limited v The Cargo carried in containers listed in Annexure "A" to the Summons (namely, Scrap Metal) (AR159/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 33 (31 July 2020)
Appeal upheld. The High Court held that Arctocel failed to prove Medu 303 was ever at Grindrod’s depot and failed to prove the demurrage claim.
Reynecke v Odinfin (Pty) Ltd (86753/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 486 (21 June 2016)
The High Court held that an unlawful debarment under the FAIS Act could found delictual liability for damages where procedural fairness was denied.
Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (176/01) [2002] ZASCA 132; [2002] 4 All SA 346 (SCA); 2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) (27 September 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police owed the appellant a legal duty to act positively to prevent the escape of a known dangerous criminal, Mohamed, who subsequently harmed her. This duty arises from the constitutional imperatives to protect individuals from violence, particularly women, as entrenched in sections 12(1)(c), 7(2), and 205(3) of the Constitution. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that liability should be limited by requiring a special relationship or by public policy concerns about limitless liability. Instead, it adopted an open-ended and flexible approac…
Source excerpt
Explore more
