Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mavis v United National Transport Union (2022/039818) [2025] ZAGPJHC 375 (3 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application challenging an exception procedure and proposed amendment, holding that dies non does not apply to Rule 23 notices.
Baleni v Road Accident Fund (39299/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 58 (29 January 2024)
The High Court removed a Road Accident Fund trial from the roll after finding serious non-compliance with amendment and expert-notice requirements.
D.M obo B.I.M v Road Accident Fund (39665/19) [2024] ZAGPPHC 66 (26 January 2024)
The High Court held that the Road Accident Fund’s defence remained struck out and its notice of intention to defend was an irregular step. The matter was set down for trial on quantum.
Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Human Settlements, Free State Province v Cem Brink CC and Others (4973/2013) [2023] ZAFSHC 370 (2 October 2023)
The court found that while there was a significant delay in prosecuting the action, the applicant provided detailed explanations for the periods of delay and did not abandon the claim. The matter involves substantial public funds and interest, and the respondent did not substantiate its claims of prejudice with evidence. The court held that the right of access to courts is constitutionally protected and should only be limited in exceptional circumstances where there is clear abuse of process. The delay did not amount to a gross abuse of procedure, and it would not be in the interests of justi…
Source excerpt
Naile v Road Accident Fund (3416/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 227 (1 June 2023)
The High Court awarded the plaintiff R803,000 in general damages against the Road Accident Fund and ordered an undertaking for future medical expenses.
Moodliyar & Bedhesi Attorneys v Madatt and Another (11188/15) [2023] ZAGPJHC 87 (6 February 2023)
The court found that the amendment to the particulars of claim introduced a new debtor, namely the minor child, and that the claim against the defendants in their representative capacity had prescribed. The original particulars of claim did not refer to the defendants in their representative capacity, and the amendment was effected more than three years after service of the original summons. The court distinguished Blaauwberg, holding that it dealt with a wrongly named debtor, whereas in this case a new debtor was introduced. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's arguments regarding…
Source excerpt
Ramokhele v Road Accident Fund (80635/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 26 (19 January 2023)
High Court road accident claim: the plaintiff was found not negligent, the amendment to include the truck driver’s negligence was allowed, and the draft order was granted.
Vorster v Clothing City (PTY) Ltd (CA145/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 15 (17 May 2022)
The court held that the appellant's amendment of the particulars of claim increased the quantum to R531,225.02, which exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the magistrate's court as determined by the Minister. The principle of continuance did not apply because the respondent was not aware of the increased quantum at the outset and did not admit to any specific amount, only a percentage of negligence. Section 37(2) did not apply because the entire claim, after amendment, was indivisible and beyond jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the appellant was to abandon part of the claim under sec…
Source excerpt
Vox Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Bridge Collections (Pty) Ltd (79806/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 19 (11 January 2022)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim for vagueness and embarrassment, and ordered the plaintiff to amend its pleadings within 15 days.
Rakhojane v MEC for Health, NC Province (2293/2016) [2021] ZANCHC 25 (4 June 2021)
Leave to appeal was refused after the court held the amended particulars introduced a prescribed new cause of action and no good cause for condonation was shown.
Explore more
