<?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>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 03:21:32 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <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>
        <item>
            <title>Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another v AfriForum NPC (1049/2024) [2026] ZASCA 34</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/eskom-holdings-soc-limited-and-another-v-afriforum-npc-10492024-2026-zasca-34-2026-03-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  FLYNOTES: PAIA – Eskom – Coal and diesel contracts – AfriForum requested disclosure of Eskom’s active coal and diesel contracts – Eskom refused, High Court ordered disclosure and Eskom appealed – Court held refusal grounds not met: alleged harms speculative, commodity prices publicly available, tender processes transparent, contract terms routinely accessible – Confidentiality claims unsupported, statutory burden not discharged – Default position under section 11 applies – Access granted – Appeal dismissed with costs – Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, ss 36(1)(b)–(c) and 42(3)(b)–(c).]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:21:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>717947</a_id>
        <updated>1774354970</updated>
        <published>1774354860</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/0001261527_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AfriForum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others (778/2024) [2026] ZASCA 28</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/afriforum-npc-v-ngwathe-local-municipality-and-others-7782024-2026-zasca-28-2026-03-13</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii Summary:    Costs – Award – General Principles – costs follow the result – if the government loses in litigation between the government and a private party seeking to assert a constitutional right it should pay the costs of the private party – Whether a full court misdirected itself in not applying these general principles in its award of costs.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Supreme Court of Appeal</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 15:08:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>717270</a_id>
        <updated>1773407357</updated>
        <published>1773407280</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/0001259607_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary221022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Samancor Chrome Limited (Application for ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/association-of-mineworkers-and-construction-union-v-samancor-chrome-limited-application-for-leave-to-appeal-2022046427-2026-zagpjhc-260-2026-03-13</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  [1]  The applicant (AMCU) seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of its application.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 15:01:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>717269</a_id>
        <updated>1773407277</updated>
        <published>1773406860</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/0001259604_resized_legalgavellawlawyer1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democratic Alliance v Minister of Finance and Others (2025/045530) [2026] ZAWCHC 102</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/democratic-alliance-v-minister-of-finance-and-others-2025045530-2026-zawchc-102-2026-03-06</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii  Summary: Constitutional Law – Section 7(4) of the VAT Act 89 of 1991– impermissible delegation of legislative power to the Minister – Section 7(4) authorising the executive to determine rate of tax that applies across the economy - delegated power not accompanied by express statutory criteria governing the magnitude of the alteration, nor requiring parliament’s ratification within a defined short period after its exercise - No sufficiently defined statutory limits or mechanisms of prompt legislative control to ensure that the balance between executive agility and parliamentary supremacy is maintained - section 7(4) declared unconstitutional and invalid as it constitutes an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 14:33:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>716792</a_id>
        <updated>1772800446</updated>
        <published>1772800380</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/0001258174_resized_legallawgaveljudiciary1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Socialist Agenda of Dispossessed Africans v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/socialist-agenda-of-dispossessed-africans-v-minister-of-cooperative-governance-and-traditional-affairs-cct-27923-2025-zacc-26-2025-11-21</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii [1]            Is the practice of sortition by casting lots as a deadlock-breaking mechanism for the establishment of an executive committee of a municipal council constitutionally offensive?  That is the crisp question that arises in these confirmation proceedings.  The High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria (High Court), declared section 43(2)(c) of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act[1] (Act) inconsistent with sections 19(3) and 160(8) of the Constitution, and thus invalid and unconstitutional.[2]  The order of invalidity was suspended for a period of 18 months and the order was referred to this Court for confirmation.  It did so in terms of section 167(5) read with section 172(2)(d) of the Constitution.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Constitutional Court</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:37:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>710568</a_id>
        <updated>1763728758</updated>
        <published>1763728620</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/0001240335_resized_legallawjudiciarycourt1022scales.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Minister of Basic Education and Others v Mkhonto and Others (A70/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 112</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/minister-of-basic-education-and-others-v-mkhonto-and-others-a702024-2025-zampmbhc-112-2025-11-21</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the judgment on Saflii [1]   Introduction.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>High Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:35:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>710566</a_id>
        <updated>1763728636</updated>
        <published>1763728500</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/0001240329_resized_gavel2legallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
