Steenkamp J, in Meyer, cautioned against attempts to advance a case on account of selective quotations from a judgement. It is of greater concern where a proposition is advanced on the basis that the court “decided” a particular issue when in fact the court did nothing of the kind. Practitioners have a duty, when advancing propositions on behalf of their client, to be faithful to whatever authority that they seek to invoke. It doesn’t serve the interests of justice to suggest that a court decided an issue when a cursory reading of the particular judgement demonstrates the contrary. It is almost as if a practitioner, in penning such a proposition, did not expect the court to independently consider the particular authority. The court should not have to second-guess propositions advanced by practitioners; who are, after all, officers of the court.
Mooki AJ in Motor Industry Bargaining Council v Suliman (JS2561/10, J29/14, J304/14)  ZALCJHB 165 (29 May 2015) at para .