South Africa Case Law

Makhafola v Wiese and Another (27518/2021)

Makhafola v Wiese and Another (27518/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 238 (12 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27518/2021

Judge

Bam

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants wrongfully and intentionally published defamatory information concerning him. The evidence established that the judgment was granted against Stoltz Inc., not the plaintiff, and the erroneous listing on the plaintiff’s credit profile resulted from a third-party error. The defendants acted promptly to correct the error once notified, and there was no evidence of malicious intent. The plaintiff did not prove that the publication caused him harm, nor did he plead or prove the elements required for special damages under an aquilian action. Constitu…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Credit Bureau Listing
• Aquilian Action
• Malicious Intent
• Special Damages
• Constitutional Damages

Alberts v Muller (2021/45445)

Alberts v Muller (2021/45445) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1242 (29 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/45445

Judge

Bhengu

The High Court dismissed a delict claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove harm, despite evidence that a poorly maintained sliding gate fell.

• Aquilian Action
• Duty Of Care
• Separation Of Issues
• Absolution From The Instance
• Novus Actus Interveniens
• Delict

Mnaka Diamonds (Pty) Ltd v Engen Petroleum Limited (1753/2023)

Mnaka Diamonds (Pty) Ltd v Engen Petroleum Limited (1753/2023) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 82 (20 November 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1753/2023

Judge

NGM Mazibuko

Default judgment was granted to Mnaka Diamonds after Engen failed to defend, with the court finding wrongful conduct caused pure economic loss.

• Pure Economic Loss
• Aquilian Action
• Franchise Agreement
• Default Judgment
• Damages Assessment
• Default-judgment

J.M obo N.M v Road Accident Fund (2020/8356)

J.M obo N.M v Road Accident Fund (2020/8356) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1075 (18 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/8356

Judge

Thupaatlase

The court found that the RAF's internal directive excluding medical aid payments from compensation was unlawful and inconsistent with section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act, as confirmed by binding precedent. The plaintiff was entitled to proven past hospital and medical expenses. The plaintiff's expert evidence regarding future medical expenses was unchallenged, and the court accepted the need for ongoing conservative treatment and surgical procedures. However, the court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving a diminution in the minor child's patrimony regarding lo…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Medical Expenses
• Aquilian Action
• Expert Evidence
• Patrimonial Loss

Unified Payroll Limited v Just Patience (Pty) Ltd (054604/2022)

Unified Payroll Limited v Just Patience (Pty) Ltd (054604/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1954 (23 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

054604/2022

Judge

Makhoba

The High Court dismissed a winding-up application after finding the respondent’s alleged debt was genuinely disputed on bona fide and reasonable grounds.

• Winding Up Proceedings
• Condictio Furtiva
• Aquilian Action
• Commercial Insolvency
• Locus Standi
• Disputed Debt

Halfon v Kempster Sedgwick (Pty) Ltd and Another (22584/2017)

Halfon v Kempster Sedgwick (Pty) Ltd and Another (22584/2017) [2023] ZAWCHC 297 (23 November 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22584/2017

Judge

Nziweni

The court found that, although the plaintiff had not taken physical possession of the vehicle, the evidence established that a tripartite agreement existed between the seller, the plaintiff, and the first defendant for delivery of the vehicle. The first defendant held the vehicle on behalf of the plaintiff, as demonstrated by the unchallenged evidence of notification and conduct. Constructive delivery was effected, granting the plaintiff locus standi to claim damages. The absence of express pleading of delivery was not fatal, as the facts supported the inference of constructive delivery. The…

Source excerpt

• Absolution From The Instance
• Constructive Delivery
• Locus Standi
• Aquilian Action

Van Der Molen v South African Civil Aviation Authority (57741/2021 ; 57742/2021)

Van Der Molen v South African Civil Aviation Authority (57741/2021 ; 57742/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 988 (5 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

57741/2021 ; 57742/2021

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed exceptions in two related damages actions against the Civil Aviation Authority, finding notice issues must be raised by special plea.

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Duty Of Care
• Statutory Exclusion Of Liability
• Defamation
• Aquilian Action
• Administrative Decision Review

Lifamisa and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (34798/2021)

Lifamisa and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (34798/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1196 (23 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34798/2021

Judge

B.C. Wanless

The High Court upheld Eskom’s exception, finding the plaintiffs’ delictual particulars lacked essential averments and poorly pleaded damages.

• Exception To Pleadings
• Vague And Embarrassing
• Cause Of Action
• Quantification Of Damages
• Aquilian Action
• Actio Iniuriarum

Devland Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd v G4S Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd (2020/16910)

Devland Cash and Carry (Pty) Ltd v G4S Cash Solutions SA (Pty) Ltd (2020/16910) [2023] ZAGPJHC 754 (3 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/16910

Judge

Moorcroft

The court found that the plaintiff's loss occurred during the performance of the contract for cash management and security services. G4S's actions, including the timing and manner of cash collections, were in fulfilment of its contractual obligations. The existence of the contract regulated the parties' rights and obligations, and the law does not impose a delictual remedy where the loss arises directly from contractual performance. The court distinguished this case from others where delictual liability was found due to breaches of duties independent of the contract. As the pleaded facts did…

Source excerpt

• Concurrent Liability
• Contractual Damages
• Aquilian Action
• Duty Of Care
• Limitation Of Liability Clause

Mashinini v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government (335/2021)

Mashinini v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government (335/2021) [2023] ZASCA 53; 2023 (5) SA 137 (SCA) (18 April 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

335/2021

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Gorven, Mali, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant discharged the onus of proving both the need for future medical treatment and the quantum thereof. The respondent failed to adduce any evidence that equivalent medical services would be available in the public sector at no or lesser cost, nor did it rebut the expert evidence presented by the appellant. The public healthcare defence was unsupported by evidence and did not justify compensation in kind. The common law does not require development in this context, and the appellant is entitled to monetary compensation for future medical and hosp…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• Aquilian Action
• Public Healthcare Defence
• Quantum Of Damages
• Mitigation Of Damages