CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Khumalo and Others v Holomisa

Citation2002 (5) SA 401 (CC); Case CCT 53/01
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawLaw of DelictDefamationMedia LawFreedom of Expression

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa, a well-known South African politician and leader of a political party, sued the applicants (Fred Khumalo, Skhumbuzo Miya, Fidel Mbhele, Times Media Limited, and New Africa Publications Limited) for defamation. The defamation arose from an article published in the Sunday World newspaper which stated, among other things, that Holomisa was involved in a gang of bank robbers and was under police investigation for this involvement. The applicants excepted to the respondent's particulars of claim, arguing that given the contents of the statement were matters in the public interest, the failure by the respondent to allege that the statement was false rendered the claim excipiable as it failed to disclose a cause of action. The exception was based on two grounds: direct application of section 16 of the Constitution (freedom of expression) and alternatively that the common law should be developed to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights as contemplated by section 39(2) of the Constitution. The exception was dismissed by the Transvaal High Court (Van der Westhuizen J), which held itself bound by the decision in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi. The applicants then sought leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the dismissal of an exception is appealable to the Constitutional Court
  • Whether the common law of defamation, which does not require a plaintiff to allege and prove the falsity of a defamatory statement, is inconsistent with the constitutional right to freedom of expression in section 16 of the Constitution
  • Whether section 16 of the Constitution has direct horizontal application between private parties in defamation actions
  • Whether the common law of defamation strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the constitutional value of human dignity
  • Whether the defence of reasonable publication developed in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi adequately protects freedom of expression

Judicial Outcome

1. The application for leave to appeal was granted. 2. The appeal was dismissed. 3. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: 1. The right to freedom of expression in section 16 of the Constitution has direct horizontal application in defamation actions between private parties under section 8(2) of the Constitution, given the nature of the right and its potential invasion by non-state actors. 2. The common law of defamation, which does not require a plaintiff to allege and prove falsity as an element of the delict but permits defendants to raise truth as a defence, is constitutionally valid and does not unjustifiably limit the right to freedom of expression. 3. The defence of reasonable publication, as established in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi, strikes an appropriate constitutional balance between freedom of expression (section 16) and the constitutional value of human dignity. This defence permits publishers to avoid liability even when they cannot prove truth, provided the publication was reasonable in all the circumstances. 4. In determining the constitutionality of common law rules affecting freedom of expression, courts must balance this right against other constitutional values, particularly human dignity. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants can assert a strong constitutional interest in relation to false statements. 5. The difficulty of proving truth or falsity of defamatory statements justifies the common law's approach of not requiring falsity as an element of the delict, as this avoids a "zero-sum game" and maintains an appropriate balance between competing constitutional interests. 6. The "interests of justice" test in section 167(6) of the Constitution is the determinative criterion for appeals to the Constitutional Court, and the word "decision" in rule 18 should not be given a restrictive meaning equivalent to "judgment or order" under the Supreme Court Act.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important obiter observations: 1. On the role of the media: The media are "key agents" in protecting freedom of expression and have a constitutional duty to act with "vigour, courage, integrity and responsibility." They are both bearers of rights and bearers of constitutional obligations. The manner in which they perform their duties will have a significant impact on the development of democracy. 2. On human dignity in the new constitutional order: No sharp line can be drawn between injuries to reputation (fama) and dignitas in the constitutional context. The value of human dignity includes both the intrinsic worth shared by all people and the individual reputation built on personal achievements. There is also a close link between human dignity and privacy. 3. On public figures and privacy: Persons in public office have a diminished right to privacy, though their right to dignity persists. 4. On the intersection of defamation law and constitutional values: The law of defamation "lies at the intersection of the freedom of speech and the protection of reputation or good name" and is "one of the aspects of our law which supports the protection of the value of human dignity." 5. On false speech: "There can be no doubt that the constitutional protection of freedom of expression has at best an attenuated interest in the publication of false statements." No person can argue a legitimate constitutional interest in maintaining a reputation based on a false foundation. 6. On the chilling effect: The Court acknowledged that the common law rule does cause "a chilling effect" on publication, but noted this is "reduced considerably by the defence of reasonable publication." 7. On section 8(3): The Court reasoned that if sections 8(1) and (2) meant the Bill of Rights applied directly to all common law, section 8(3) would have no apparent purpose, and courts cannot adopt interpretations that render constitutional provisions purposeless. 8. On comparative law: The Court noted that many jurisdictions (Canada, UK, Australia, Germany) have rejected the US "actual malice" standard from New York Times v Sullivan, and this represents "the high-water mark of foreign jurisprudence protecting the freedom of speech."

Legal Significance

This is a landmark case in South African media law and defamation law. It is significant because: 1. It confirmed the direct horizontal application of the right to freedom of expression in section 16 of the Constitution in defamation disputes between private parties. 2. It affirmed the constitutional validity of the common law of defamation as developed in National Media Ltd v Bogoshi, particularly the defence of reasonable publication. 3. It established that the common law of defamation strikes an appropriate constitutional balance between freedom of expression and human dignity, and does not require plaintiffs to prove falsity as an element of the delict. 4. It clarified the test for appeals to the Constitutional Court, emphasizing that "the interests of justice" is the determinative criterion, not the narrower appealability test applied by other courts. 5. It rejected the US "actual malice" standard from New York Times v Sullivan, aligning South African law with the approach taken in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions. 6. It provided important guidance on the role and constitutional obligations of the media in South Africa's democracy, emphasizing both their freedom and their duty to act with "vigour, courage, integrity and responsibility." 7. It clarified the relationship between human dignity, reputation, and privacy in the constitutional framework. The case remains a cornerstone of South African defamation law and media law, establishing the framework for balancing freedom of expression with protection of reputation.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 88 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Alix Jean Carmichele v The Minister of Safety and Security and The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development2001 (4) SA 938 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the court's perception of legal convictions of the community as a test for wrongfulness may need reconsideration under the new…

  • Allan Aubrey Boesak v The StateCCT 25/00, [2000] ZACC 25, 1 December 2000
    Applies

    Court applies this decision's guidance on interpreting 'interests of justice' for Constitutional Court appeals.

  • Ashok Rama Mistry v The Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and OthersCCT 13/97; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC); 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the right to privacy protects a sphere of intimacy and autonomy and serves to foster human dignity.

  • Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC)
    Applies

    Court applies this decision's recognition of human dignity as a foundational constitutional value.

  • Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another1996 (3) SA 850 (CC); 1996 (5) BCLR 658 (CC); CCT 8/95
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes this case on the basis that the 1996 Constitution's provisions on horizontal application differ from the interim Constitution's provisions…

  • J D Pennington and M E Summerley v The StateCase CCT 14/97 (unreported, decided 18 September 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for factors relevant to determining interests of justice including prospects of success.

  • Luke M Tembani and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another(167/2021) [2022] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the recognition of human dignity as a foundational constitutional value.

  • Lynette Nonqaba Hlobo v The Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents FundCase number: 3/99
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal on common law development may be desirable before this Court hears a case.

  • Media 24 (Pty) Ltd v Nhleko & Another(109/22) [2023] ZASCA 77
    Related To

    Cited as an example of High Court judgment that considered the development of defamation law in light of the Constitution.

  • N K v Minister of Safety and Security2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) [also reported as 2005 (8) BCLR 661 (CC); Case CCT 52/04]
    Cites

    Cited for the Supreme Court of Appeal's recent decline to reconsider the appealability of dismissals of exceptions.

  • Prinsloo v Van der Linde and Another1997 (3) SA 1012 (CC); 1997 (6) BCLR 759 (CC); Case CCT 4/96
    Cites

    Cited for discussion of the effect of burdens of proof in civil law as they relate to the right to equality.

  • Republican Press (Pty) Ltd v CEPPWAWU & Gumede and Others[2007] ZASCA 121
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the defence of truth and public benefit in defamation law.

  • South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Chief of the South African National Defence ForceCCT 27/98
    Cites

    Cited for this Court's recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a democracy.

  • The Islamic Unity Convention v The Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others(CCT 36/01) [2002] ZACC 3
    Applies

    Court applies this decision's guidance on interpreting 'interests of justice' for Constitutional Court appeals and on the importance of freedom of expression.

  • The State v Sipho Zakele NtseleCCT 25/97 (decided 14 October 1997)
    Cites

    Cited for the recognition of human dignity as a foundational constitutional value and its relationship to privacy.

  • William Frederick Gerber and Others v Member of the Executive Council of the Gauteng Provincial Government, Development Planning & Local Government and AnotherCase no: 303/2001
    Applies

    Court applies this decision's guidance on interpreting 'interests of justice' for Constitutional Court appeals.

Cited By 73 Cases

  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    Cites

    Cited for the test of when it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • African Christian Democratic Party v The Electoral Commission and OthersCCT 10/06
    Applies

    Applied to establish the test for whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the test for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court and the criteria for determining whether an order is appealable (final in effect,…

  • AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others; Minister of Police v AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Others[2021] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that there is a close link between human dignity and privacy in our constitutional order, and for the acknowledgment of the…

  • Barkhuizen v Napier(CCT 72/05) [2007] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the test concerning leave to appeal and whether it is in the interests of justice.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the test of whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others
    Cites

    Cited at para 14 to support granting leave to appeal where it is in the interests of justice.

  • B[…] E[…] v N[…] T[…] and Others(505/2025) [2026] ZASCA 25 (11 March 2026)
    Cites

    The court cites the principle of comity owed to the trial court as an indicator that appellate intervention would not be in the interests of justice.

  • Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others(CCT 25/09) [2009] ZACC 21
    Cites

    The Court cites Khumalo for the principle that in a democratic society the mass media play a role of undeniable importance and bear a constitutional duty to…

  • C and Others v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng and Others(CCT 55/11) [2012] ZACC 1
    Cites

    Cited by Jafta J for the principle that the onus is on the applicant to prove inconsistency with the Constitution.

  • Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others(CCT 69/12) [2012] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited on the factors to consider when deciding whether it is in the interests of justice to hear an appeal against an interlocutory ruling, including the…

  • City of Cape Town v South African National Roads Authority Limited & others(20786/2014) [2015] ZASCA 58 (30 March 2015)
    Cites

    Cited to confirm that the mass media bear an obligation to provide citizens with information and a platform for exchange of ideas crucial to democratic culture.

  • Daniels v Scribante and Another(CCT 50/16) [2017] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited on horizontal application of the Bill of Rights on the basis of nature and intensity of the right.

  • David Dikoko v Thupi Zacharia MokhatlaCase CCT 62/05 (decided 3 August 2006)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the law of defamation is based on the actio injuriarum, a flexible Roman law remedy affording damages for impairment of…

  • Delta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Jaco Van Der MerweCase No 0183/03
    Follows

    Court follows the Constitutional Court's holding that the common law principles in Bogoshi are consistent with the Constitution and maintain proper balance…

  • De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others(CCT 5/03) [2003] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited for the relevance of whether grounds of appeal raise a constitutional issue of importance on which a decision by this Court is desirable and for the need…

  • DE v RH[2015] ZACC 18
    Cites

    This Court notes that no sharp line can be drawn between injuries to personality rights and that constitutional values imbue our understanding of these rights.

  • Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another[2020] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited on the importance of freedom of expression and that it is not a paramount value.

  • FirstRand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Modingwana Harry Makaleng(034/16) [2016] ZASCA 169 (24 November 2016)
    Cites

    Cited in the dissenting judgment for guidance on the meaning of 'decision' in Constitutional Court Rule 18, indicating a broader meaning than 'judgment or…

  • George Frederick Hardaker v Andrew Lionel PhillipsCase no: 120/04
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that unlawfulness depends on a balancing of the constitutionally enshrined right of dignity and reputation on the one hand and the…

  • Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School and Others v Ahmed Asruff Essay N.O. and Others(CCT 29/10) [2011] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the negative duty not to impair existing access to basic education binds private parties such as the Trust.

  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others[2013] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the recognition of participation and engagement related to freedom of expression.

  • Hendrick Pieter Le Roux and Others v Louis Dey(CCT 45/10) [2011] ZACC 4
    Applies

    Court applies this case's definition of elements of defamation and its guidance on balancing dignity/reputation rights with freedom of expression.

  • H E T H Mabaso v The Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Minister for Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentCase CCT 76/03, decided on 5 October 2004
    Cites

    Cited as one of a string of cases establishing guiding principles for determining the interests of justice in applications for leave to appeal.

  • Independent Newspapers Holdings Ltd and Others v SulimanCase No: 49/2003, [2004] SCA (unreported, delivered 28 May 2004)
    Cites

    Cited regarding proportionality when considering constitutionally entrenched rights and for the proposition that false and injurious statements are harmful to…

  • Ingledew v Financial Services Board(CCT 6/02) [2003] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the factors relevant in considering the interests of justice when evaluating whether to grant leave to appeal, including the nature of the…

  • International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Ltd (with Bridon International Limited intervening)(CCT 59/09) [2010] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that it is not a jurisdictional requirement for an appeal to this Court that the matter must involve a judgment or order within the…

  • Isaac Metsing Magajane v The Chairperson, North West Gambling Board and OthersCase CCT 49/05
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court grants leave to appeal when the applicant raises a constitutional issue and it is in the interests of justice.

  • Jabulani Zulu and 389 Others v eThekwini Municipality and Others[2014] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that insofar as a decision has a definite bearing on rights and obligations, it may be subject to appeal.

  • Jacobus Bogaards v The State(CCT 120/11) [2012] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited to explain the process of determining whether the common law is deficient in protecting a right.

  • Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others(CCT 08/08) [2009] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for how this Court has previously balanced the right to freedom of expression with the rights to privacy and dignity.

  • King N.O. and Others v De Jager and Others[2021] ZACC 4
    Applies

    This Court determined the question of horizontal application of the right to freedom of expression based on section 8(2) and 8(3) of the Constitution, and held…

  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others[2013] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited by Nkabinde J for principles governing leave to appeal and the weighing up of factors in the interests of justice.

  • Langa v Hlophe(697/08) [2009] ZASCA 36 (31 March 2009)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the prima facie wrongful violation of the right to dignity may be justified in certain circumstances.

  • Lungisa Khuza and King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality v Nontandabuzo KhanyiweCase No. 5009/2018 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    Cited for restating the law on defamation, specifically that once a plaintiff establishes publication of a defamatory statement, it is presumed unlawful and…

  • Luzuko Kerr Hoho v The State(493/05) [2008] ZASCA 98 (17 September 2008)
    Applies

    Applied for the importance of freedom of expression and human dignity, and that the civil remedy for defamation strikes an appropriate balance between…

  • Madidimalo Kislon Mamadi and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others[2022] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that even decisions without final effect are appealable if the interests of justice so require.

  • Maharaj Sathyandranath Ragunanan & Others v Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC & Others(844/2016) [2017] ZASCA 138 (29 September 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the role of the media in protecting freedom of expression and ensuring government accountability.

  • Mail and Guardian Media Limited and Others v M J Chipu N.O. (Chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board) and Others(CCT 136/12) [2013] ZACC 32
    Cites

    Cited for the role of the media in protecting freedom of expression, ensuring government accountability, and the constitutional duty of the media to act with…

  • Manyatshe v M & G Media Limited(415/08) [2009] ZASCA 96 (17 September 2009)
    Applies

    Applied the principle recognising the press's function to ferret out corruption and dishonesty, and applied the principle that defamation law requires…

  • Marie Adriaana Fourie and Cecelia Johanna Bonthuys v The Minister of Home Affairs and The Director General: Home AffairsCase CCT 25/03 (decided 31 July 2003)
    Applies

    Applied to establish that the interests of justice, coupled with leave of the Court, is the determinative criterion for deciding when appeals should be…

  • Media 24 Limited t/a Daily Sun v Du Plessis(127/2016) [2017] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts must strike a fine balance between the important role played by the media in providing information and the right to human…

  • Member of the Executive Council for Health, Western Cape v A R Coetzee and 49 Others(CCT 137/19) [2020] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that public interest in constitutional issue determination is relevant to granting leave to appeal.

  • Mighty Solutions CC t/a Orlando Service Station v Engen Petroleum Limited and Another[2015] ZACC 34
    Cites

    Court declined to find that common law of defamation was inconsistent with the Constitution.

  • Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Another v British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others(309/21) [2022] ZASCA 89
    Cites

    Cited at para 27 for the principle that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to conduct in their homes.

  • Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV 'Smart' and Another(573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129 (1 October 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the interest of justice criterion is paramount in deciding whether orders, including interlocutory orders, are appealable.

  • Mmuthi Kgosietsile Pilane and Another v Nyalala John Molefe Pilane and Another(CCT 46/12) [2013] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the significance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

  • Mogale Winston Stanford Modiri v The Minister of Safety and Security(581/2010) [2011] ZASCA 153 (28 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the vital function of the press to ferret out corruption and dishonesty and to expose perpetrators.

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Media 24 Limited & others and Henri Christo Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others(425/2017 and 426/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017)
    Cites

    Constitutional Court emphasised the media's constitutional duty to act with vigour, courage, integrity and responsibility in disseminating information and…

  • National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd and AnotherCase CCT 14/02, 2002 (2) BLLR 139 (LAC)
    Cites

    The case is cited for principles governing the phrase 'interests of justice' in the context of leave to appeal and that the importance of the issue beyond the…

  • NM and Others v Smith and Others (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae)(CCT 69/05) [2007] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited multiple times for recognition that freedom of expression is fundamental in democracy, for mutual supporting rights, and for upholding principles set out…

  • Nova Property Group Holdings Ltd v Cobbett(20815/2014) [2016] ZASCA 63
    Cites

    Cited in support of the interests of justice standard for appealability.

  • Petro Props (Pty) Limited v Barlow, Nicole Enid Dorothy and Libradene Wetland Association2005/29663 (Witwatersrand Local Division)
    Applies

    Court applies O'Regan J's dictum that freedom of expression is integral to a democratic society, constitutive of human dignity and autonomy, and essential for…

  • Philani-Ma-Afrika & Others v W M Mailula & Others(674/08) [2009] ZASCA 115 (25 September 2009)
    Applies

    Applied to support the principle that the interests of justice are paramount in determining appealability.

  • Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another(CCT 113/11) [2012] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the vital role of a healthy press in a democratic society.

  • Ptrue Bothma v Petrus Arnoldus Els(CCT 21/09) [2009] ZACC 27
    Cites

    Court cites Khumalo v Holomisa as a classic example where constitutional issues in private litigation turned on relationship between competing constitutional…

  • Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another[2021] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that freedom of expression is constitutive of the dignity and autonomy of human beings but is not a paramount value in our law.

  • Ramabele v The State; Msimango v The State[2020] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for factors to determine whether the interests of justice warrant leave to appeal.

  • Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele v Mail & Guardian Limited and Philip van NiekerkCase No: 054/2003 (SCA)
    Follows

    Court follows this decision affirming that there is no hierarchy of constitutional rights and that freedom of expression and dignity must be balanced.

  • Schubart Park Residents' Association and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another(CCT 23/12) [2012] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Court cites Khumalo regarding engagement in the context of freedom of expression.

Explore More Cases

More Constitutional Law cases

  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
  • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
  • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    • More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97