<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/style.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <title>Polity.org.za | All Case Law</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Polity offers free access to South African case law. Find legal judgments made in the High Court, Constitutional Court, Magistrates Courts and Supreme Court of Appeal.]]></description>
        <link>https://www.polity.org.za/page/all-case-law</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 15:18:59 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <item>
            <title>South African Human Rights Commission and Another v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/south-african-human-rights-commission-and-another-v-city-of-ekurhuleni-metropolitan-municipality-and-others-2026-124157-2026-zagpjhc-765-2026-07-17</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  1                    On 13 July 2026, I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought in this matter by the first to third respondents (to whom I shall refer collectively as “the municipality”). I indicated at the time I refused leave for appeal that I would make my reasons for doing so known in due course. These are my reasons.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:18:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>725938</a_id>
        <updated>1784294386</updated>
        <published>1784294280</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001286243_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Adonisi and Others v Minister for Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Others; Minister ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/adonisi-and-others-v-minister-for-transport-and-public-works-western-cape-and-others-minister-of-human-settlements-and-another-v-minister-for-transport-and-public-works-western-cape-and-others-cct-12624-cct-12824-2026-zacc-29-2026-07-03</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  FLYNOTES: CONSTITUTION – Housing – Equitable access to land – Applicants opposed disposal of well located Tafelberg property for private development, contending it should be used for social housing – Province and City argued compliance with statutory framework and broader housing programmes – Court held location integral to “adequate housing” under section 26, disposal perpetuated spatial injustice, and public participation defective – Regulations inconsistent with Constitution, cooperative governance duties breached – Appeals upheld, invalidity declared, Province liable for costs – Constitution, s 26.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Constitutional Court</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 15:11:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>724995</a_id>
        <updated>1783084378</updated>
        <published>1783084260</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001283289_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re Constitutionality of the Copyright ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/ex-parte-president-of-the-republic-of-south-africa-in-re-constitutionality-of-the-copyright-amendment-bill-and-the-performers-protection-amendment-bill-cct-30624-2026-zacc-26-2026-06-26</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]            On 10 October 2024, the President of the Republic of South Africa launched an application on an ex parte (without notice to other parties) basis in terms of sections 79(4)[1] and 84(2)(c)[2] of the Constitution.  The application concerns proposed amendments to the Copyright Act[3] (Act) and the Performers’ Protection Act,[4] and in particular, whether certain sections in the Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) and the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill (PPAB) are constitutional.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Constitutional Court</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:31:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>724476</a_id>
        <updated>1782480788</updated>
        <published>1782480660</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001281641_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary221022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Esther Lungu and Others v Government of The Republic of Zambia and Others (089/2026) [2026] ZASCA 87</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/esther-lungu-and-others-v-government-of-the-republic-of-zambia-and-others-0892026-2026-zasca-87-2026-06-26</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii ]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:29:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>724474</a_id>
        <updated>1782480642</updated>
        <published>1782480540</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001281632_resized_gavel2legallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of Council, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/economic-freedom-fighters-v-speaker-of-council-ekurhuleni-metropolitan-municipality-and-others-2026112542-2026-zagpjhc-645-2026-06-12</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Read the full judgment on Saflii  The reasons for her order are multifarious and extensive; they range from questions around the likelihood of irreparable harm should the relief not be granted, to questions of self-created urgency.  While I am in no way bound by the order of Crutchfield J, and still less by the reasons for which she decided not to enrol the matter, and while I am required to consider afresh the question as to whether this matter should be entertained in the urgent court today,  I should indicate that I consider the reasoning of my learned sister in relation to the question of self-created urgency to be compelling.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:53:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>723487</a_id>
        <updated>1781268881</updated>
        <published>1781268780</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001278755_resized_gavelandscalesofjusticelegallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another v National Energy Regulator of South ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/city-of-tshwane-metropolitan-municipality-and-another-v-national-energy-regulator-of-south-africa-and-others-2023-072548-2026-zagpphc-530-2026-06-12</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]             This is an application to review and set aside the decision of the first respondent (Nersa) to amend the Electricity Distribution Licence (Edl) granted to the second respondent (Eskom) to include in it the Mooikloof Mega City Development. The decision was made on 10 February 2023.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:51:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>723486</a_id>
        <updated>1781268798</updated>
        <published>1781268660</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001278752_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others (CCT 240/24) [2026] ZACC 19</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/solidarity-trade-union-and-others-v-minister-of-health-and-others-cct-24024-2026-zacc-19-2026-05-19</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  Solidarity Trade Union, professional associations, and private health practitioners challenged constitutionality of certificate of need scheme requiring approval from Director General before providing prescribed health services – High Court declared provisions invalid, requiring confirmation – Constitutional Court held challenge ripe, scheme irrational, vested sweeping discretionary powers without safeguards, and unjustifiably limited section 22 right to choose trade or profession – Invalidity confirmed – National Health Act 61 of 2003, ss 36–40.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Constitutional Court</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 11:17:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>721575</a_id>
        <updated>1779182299</updated>
        <published>1779182220</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001272730_resized_healthcaremedicalsurgeryhealth180720251022.jpeg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>S v Zuma and Another (Leave to Appeal) (CCD30/2018) [2026] ZAKZPHC 54</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/s-v-zuma-and-another-leave-to-appeal-ccd302018-2026-zakzphc-54-2026-05-15</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]      Simultaneously with the applications for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this court dismissing Mr Zuma’s and Thales South Africa (Pty) Ltd’s applications to quash the charges in accordance with s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA), the State, represented by Mr Trengove SC, brought its own application, seeking the court’s intervention in what it termed a Stalingrad tactic that has prevented the commencement of the trial in this matter for decades.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 14:39:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>721420</a_id>
        <updated>1778848855</updated>
        <published>1778848740</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001272252_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title> Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/economic-freedom-fighters-and-another-v-speaker-of-the-national-assembly-and-others-cct-3524-2026-zacc-17-8-may-2026-2026-05-08</link>
            <description><![CDATA[[1]  In this application, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) challenge the constitutional validity of rule 129I of the Ninth Edition of the Rules of the National Assembly (NA Rules) and the National Assembly’s vote on 13 December 2022 (NA vote) to not refer the Independent Panel’s (Panel) Report[1] to the Impeachment Committee.  There are three judgments. [2]  The first judgment is written by Maya CJ, with Madlanga ADCJ, Rogers J and Theron J concurring.  It finds that this Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the validity of rule 129I as well as the related challenge to the validity of the NA vote.  It also determines that the challenges are not moot and that the delay in bringing the challenge to the NA vote can be overlooked.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Constitutional Court</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 15:14:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>720894</a_id>
        <updated>1778246177</updated>
        <published>1778246040</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001270752_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        <attachments><attachment><url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/96554_doc-20260508-wa0005..pdf</url><size>8254626</size><title> Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 35/24) [2026] ZACC 17 (8 May 2026) </title></attachment></attachments>
        <media:group><media:content url="https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/96554_doc-20260508-wa0005..pdf" fileSize="8254626" type="video" medium="video" expression="full"><media:description type="plain"> Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 35/24) [2026] ZACC 17 (8 May 2026) </media:description></media:content></media:group>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Zuma, Mbeki vs Khampepe and others</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/zuma-mbeki-vs-khampepe-and-others-2026-03-30</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The applicants, Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma and Mr Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki, have approached this Court on an urgent basis. They seek a range of relief against the first respondent, Commissioner Sisi Khampepe, who, as the President's appointee, serves as the Chairperson of a Commission of Inquiry investigating allegations of political interference in the prosecution of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cases.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 10:49:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>718301</a_id>
        <updated>1774860733</updated>
        <published>1774860540</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0001262610_resized_gavelandscalesofjusticelegallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        <attachments><attachment><url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/96390_judgement_-_zuma_and_another_v_khampepe_and_others_[2026-026936].pdf</url><size>1087280</size><title>Zuma, Mbeki vs Khampepe and others</title></attachment></attachments>
        <media:group><media:content url="https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/attachments/96390_judgement_-_zuma_and_another_v_khampepe_and_others_[2026-026936].pdf" fileSize="1087280" type="video" medium="video" expression="full"><media:description type="plain">Zuma, Mbeki vs Khampepe and others</media:description></media:content></media:group>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
