Lopes Attorneys Inc

Lopes Attorneys Inc Lopes Attorneys Inc is a dynamic and internationally recognised boutique law firm dedicated to delivering cutting-edge legal solutions.

We provide exceptional legal counsel with integrity and a deep understanding of our clients’ needs.

How It Began: The Birth of PAJAHow South Africa Built One of the Strongest Shields Against Unfair Government PowerSwipe ...
01/06/2026

How It Began: The Birth of PAJA

How South Africa Built One of the Strongest Shields Against Unfair Government Power

Swipe through the story of why this important law was created and why it still matters so much today.

Many brands and social media influencers still believe that if a promotional post feels organic, they don’t need to disc...
27/05/2026

Many brands and social media influencers still believe that if a promotional post feels organic, they don’t need to disclose anything. That is a dangerous assumption.

In South Africa, the Consumer Protection Act and the Advertising Regulatory Board’s (ARB) Code of Practice prohibit misleading advertising. They also explicitly require that any compensation or material connection be disclosed to consumers.

The ARB actively investigates complaints about undisclosed sponsorships, and the reputational fallout can be damaging to the brand's reputation. Beyond official sanctions, brands also risk civil liability under consumer protection laws if the audience is found to have been intentionally misled.

Compliance in digital marketing requires structured governance. Instead of treating influencer engagements as informal creative collaborations, corporate entities must implement clear compliance policies and contractually bind creators to statutory disclosure standards.

As regulatory scrutiny over digital media intensifies, transparency is no longer optional. Ensuring proper disclosure guardrails are in place is a necessary step to protect a business from avoidable compliance and legal fallout.

South African companies are rapidly integrating AI to automate or assist critical decision-making processes, ranging fro...
26/05/2026

South African companies are rapidly integrating AI to automate or assist critical decision-making processes, ranging from credit assessments and candidate screening to risk evaluation and strategic planning. However, many have yet to evaluate the sharp increase in liability risk this poses to their directors.

Section 76 of the Companies Act of 2008 requires directors to exercise their powers in good faith, for a proper purpose, and with a reasonable degree of care, skill, and diligence. When a company relies on AI-generated recommendations or systems, directors cannot simply shift responsibility onto technology when things go wrong. Ultimate accountability remains with the board.

Should the implementation of an AI system lead to regulatory breaches, financial losses, or harm to stakeholders, pleading “technical ignorance” will not stand as a legal defence.

Given the pace at which AI is evolving, this is no longer a hypothetical future problem. Complex algorithmic decision-making processes are already being scrutinised by courts internationally. In the United States, for example, cases such as Mobley v Workday have highlighted potential liability where AI hiring tools allegedly produced discriminatory outcomes. Similar scrutiny is expected in South Africa as local regulators and courts engage more deeply with algorithmic accountability.

Forward-thinking boards recognise that AI is a powerful but imperfect tool. It can enhance business operations, but it must never be used as a substitute for human governance.

Social media has made it incredibly easy for a casual photograph taken in a public space to end up being used in a comme...
22/05/2026

Social media has made it incredibly easy for a casual photograph taken in a public space to end up being used in a commercial marketing campaign or a viral brand meme. When a person's face suddenly becomes the centre of a public digital campaign, it raises a very practical legal question: who actually controls your likeness once it goes online?

South African law does not have a single, standalone statute governing "image rights." Instead, protection is built from our common law rights to identity and dignity, alongside constitutional protections for privacy. The core rule is straightforward: your image cannot be used commercially, or in a way that falsely implies you endorse a product, service, or cause, without your explicit consent.

Our courts have firmly established this principle. In the well-known matter of Kumalo v Cycle Lab, the court held that using a person's likeness for unauthorised commercial gain directly infringes upon their personality rights. This principle carries immense weight today. Brands, businesses, and content creators who use someone's photograph for promotional purposes without permission risk severe legal exposure.

Naturally, context matters, and not every instance of sharing a photo is unlawful. Genuine news reporting, fair comment, and specific editorial or artistic expressions receive strong protection under the right to freedom of expression.
Because online content moves so quickly, personal likeness now has distinct commercial value. If a business exploits your image for profit without your consent, you have clear legal grounds to object and pursue remedies. On the flip side, if you are a business or content creator using media that features other people, securing explicit permission or ensuring you have a solid legal justification is a vital compliance step.

While the legal framework continues to evolve alongside shifting technology, the foundational protections are already very much in place and actively enforced.

Today marks the final day of hearings in the High Court in Pretoria regarding the future of three elephants, Lammie, Ram...
21/05/2026

Today marks the final day of hearings in the High Court in Pretoria regarding the future of three elephants, Lammie, Ramadiba, and Mopane, currently held at the Johannesburg Zoo.

We support the application for their relocation to a sanctuary where they can live in conditions that better respect their complex needs. Elephants are highly sentient animals that form strong family bonds, communicate over long distances, require vast space to roam, and display rich emotional lives. The evidence before the court shows that traditional zoo enclosures, no matter how well maintained, struggle to meet these fundamental requirements over a lifetime.

The application is grounded in the Animals Protection Act and section 24 of the Constitution, which protects the right to an environment that is not harmful to wellbeing. It asks the court to recognise that prolonged confinement causing unnecessary suffering is not compatible with our legal and constitutional obligations to sentient beings.

As a firm deeply committed to animal welfare, we believe South Africa should lead by example. We possess both the constitutional framework and the natural environment to ensure elephants like Lammie, Ramadiba, and Mopane can live with greater dignity and freedom.

We will continue to follow the judgment with close interest. This case represents an important opportunity for our courts to strengthen animal welfare protections and affirm that sentient animals deserve more than minimal standards of survival.

In 1995, just one year into democracy, South Africa’s Constitutional Court was asked to decide whether the state had the...
19/05/2026

In 1995, just one year into democracy, South Africa’s Constitutional Court was asked to decide whether the state had the right to execute its own citizens.

The unanimous answer changed the moral foundation of our legal system forever.

Swipe through the story of how South Africa became one of the first countries in the world to abolish the death penalty through constitutional interpretation, and why this judgment continues to define who we are as a constitutional democracy.

Knowing the limits of state authority is a vital safeguard for your business. In South African law, the doctrine of ultr...
18/05/2026

Knowing the limits of state authority is a vital safeguard for your business. In South African law, the doctrine of ultra vires means “beyond the powers”. It dictates that every municipality, minister, and a regulatory body can only exercise the exact powers given to them by legislation.

If a public authority makes a decision that falls outside its lawful scope, that action is invalid from the very beginning and can be set aside by the courts.

In a heavily regulated commercial landscape, administrative decisions have massive financial consequences. Whether it is an unauthorized municipal tax, an overreaching ministerial directive, or unfair regulatory conditions, understanding this principle helps corporate entities recognise when a state decision is vulnerable to a successful legal challenge.

Protect your commercial interests by ensuring public power stays within its proper constitutional boundaries.

On 8 May 1996, the Constitutional Assembly adopted South Africa’s final Constitution by an overwhelming majority. That h...
08/05/2026

On 8 May 1996, the Constitutional Assembly adopted South Africa’s final Constitution by an overwhelming majority. That historic moment marked the legal birth of our modern democracy. It established the foundation upon which every right, every institution, and every check on power now rests.

Thirty years later, this document remains one of the most progressive in the world. It enshrines civil and political rights alongside socio-economic protections and environmental safeguards. Most importantly, it reinforces the principle that public power must always be exercised lawfully, reasonably, and procedurally fairly. It transformed a divided society into one governed by the rule of law where even the highest offices remain subject to constitutional limits.

A constitution is only as strong as the daily commitment to uphold it. In courtrooms, boardrooms, and communities across the country, its principles continue to be tested and applied. These applications occur through landmark judgements and the quieter administrative decisions that affect ordinary lives. Every successful challenge to arbitrary power and every protected right reminds us that the Constitution is not a historical artefact. It is a living framework that shapes how power is exercised and how justice is pursued.

On this 30th anniversary, we reflect on how far this document has taken us. We also recognise the ongoing responsibility we share to protect and give practical effect to its promises. The true measure of its success will always lie in the reality it creates for the people it serves rather than the words on the page.

The use of wild animals in circuses continues in South Africa, despite growing public opposition and increasing scientif...
07/05/2026

The use of wild animals in circuses continues in South Africa, despite growing public opposition and increasing scientific consensus around the welfare concerns associated with the practice.

While several circuses have made the progressive decision to transition to human-only performances, a small number of travelling shows still feature lions, tigers, elephants, and other wild animals. These animals are subjected to repeated long-distance transport, confined living conditions, temporary enclosures, and the expectation to perform unnatural behaviours for entertainment.

South Africa’s Animals Protection Act prohibits the infliction of unnecessary suffering, while the Performing Animals Protection Act regulates the licensing and exhibition of performing animals. However, regulatory compliance does not necessarily address the broader welfare implications of circus life for highly-intelligent, wide-ranging species. Veterinary and behavioural research continues to identify stress-related behaviours, compromised welfare, and the negative effects of confinement in these environments.

Globally, there has been a clear shift away from the use of wild animals in circuses, with many countries introducing outright bans. In South Africa, growing awareness among the public, welfare organisations, and even some local authorities signals that change is overdue.

As a firm committed to advancing animal welfare through law and policy, we believe entertainment should never come at the cost of an animal’s fundamental wellbeing. True progress lies in celebrating human artistry and creativity without exploiting sentient beings who cannot consent to their role in the spectacle.

The law may establish the minimum standard, but ethical responsibility increasingly demands more.

Government has wide powers, but those powers have limits. When the state takes action that affects your rights or operat...
06/05/2026

Government has wide powers, but those powers have limits. When the state takes action that affects your rights or operations, South African law requires that the measure must be proportionate.

Proportionality is the legal way of asking: Is this action genuinely necessary? Is there a less heavy-handed way to achieve the same goal? And does the benefit to the public outweigh the real harm or burden it places on individuals and businesses?

This principle is built into section 36 of the Constitution, which governs when rights may be limited. It also runs through the test for fair and reasonable administrative decisions under PAJA. Courts use it to strike down measures that go too far, even when the government’s intention is lawful.

You see it applied in practice across many areas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several lockdown regulations were set aside because they were broader than needed or lacked a rational connection to the actual risk. In policing matters, courts have ruled the use of force disproportionate where less extreme options were available. Even in sentencing, judges regularly ask whether a prescribed punishment is fair given the specific facts of the case.

For anyone dealing with regulators, permits, enforcement actions, or zoning decisions, proportionality is one of the most useful shields available. It forces decision-makers to justify why they chose a particular route instead of a gentler one, and it gives you a clear basis to push back when something feels excessive.

Understanding this concept helps you spot when government action crosses the line from reasonable to overreach, and it equips you to respond with clarity rather than frustration.

Address

Stonemill Office Park, 300 Acacia Road
Johannesburg
2195

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00

Telephone

+27115686837

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lopes Attorneys Inc posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Lopes Attorneys Inc:

Shortcuts

Share

Category