In April 2025, the High Court granted a final order restraining the two former associates of the applicant, part of a major financial group, from publishing or distributing defamatory statements about the company and its employees on social media or elsewhere. The judgment highlights the interplay between freedom of expression and the right to dignity
This blog is co-authored by Raaiqhah Akoo, a candidate attorney.
In March 2025 the High Court decided that the repudiation by an insurer of a claim for indemnification under an insurance policy was lawful due to the insured breaching the terms of the policy by providing false information during the assessment of his claim and
In a January 2025 judgment, the High Court dealt with a claim for damages by the claimant, who slipped and fell on a wet floor at a restaurant owned by the defendant. The central issue was whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises and whether their negligence caused the claimant’s injuries. The court
In a December 2024 judgment, the High Court discusses the requirements for a successful application to dismiss a claim due to want of prosecution.
Quoting from the 2014 SCA judgement in Cassimjee v Minister of Finance there are three primary requirements that must be met:
“First, there should be a delay in the prosecution of
The Western Cape High Court erroneously held in Oliver NO v MEC for Health Western Cape and City of Cape Town that the deceased plaintiff’s non-pecuniary claim for general damages did not transfer to her estate as the matter had not reached litis contestatio (close of pleadings) because the summons had been amended to increase
This blog was co-authored by Zahraa Amod-Carim
In May 2022, the Eastern Cape High Court handed down a judgment that invalidated a shareholders agreement between a private entity and its respective shareholders. Five medical doctors and shareholders challenged the hospital in respect of a new shareholders agreement put into effect without their signed consent required
This blog was co-authored by: Bwanika Lwanga, Candidate Attorney
In this January 2021 judgment the high court in Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Kitcher and Another (874/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 12 considered the question of whether the minister could be held liable for harm from an animal attack on premises within their control.
In the High Court Steinhoff judgment, it was argued that the litigation funding agreement between the class representative and the funder was a contract of insurance in terms of which the funder provides indemnity insurance to the class representative in consideration for the funder being paid a premium, being a percentage of the ultimate reward.
This blog was co-authored by Sa’ood Lahri, Director and Muhammad Mirza, Candidate Attorney
In August 2021 the High Court[1] accepted that an affidavit commissioned over a WhatsApp video-call constitutes substantial compliance with the applicable regulations[2] and is valid in light of the practical difficulties faced by the deponent due to the raging Covid19
The UK High Court found that an independent consultant to a sub-contractor relating to the design and construction of a slipform rig did not owe a duty of care to the main contractor and could not be sued for damages for negligence. There was no assumption of responsibility to the main contractor which sought damages