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
Meyer v Road Accident Fund (31809/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 672 (4 July 2025)
The High Court refused default judgment against the Road Accident Fund, finding no credible proof that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by negligent driving of an unidentified vehicle.
Vutlhari v Road Accident Fund (2692/2021) [2022] ZALMPPHC 31 (17 June 2022)
The court found material discrepancies between the plaintiff's hospital records, which indicated the injuries resulted from a fall rather than a motor vehicle accident, and the particulars of claim. The accident report was completed three months after the alleged incident and lacked crucial details. The plaintiff and her attorneys failed to clarify these discrepancies or attend court after the issues were raised. Given the lack of evidence supporting the claim and the absence of the plaintiff and her legal representatives, the court determined that it could not proceed to judgment on the meri…
Source excerpt
Brummer v Road Accident Fund (82/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 328 (9 June 2020)
The court dismissed a Road Accident Fund quantum claim after finding the plaintiff had not proved that the accident caused her alleged injuries or loss of earning capacity.
Jones v Road Accident Fund (1286/18) [2019] ZASCA 173; 2020 (2) SA 83 (SCA) (2 December 2019)
The SCA held that identifying a group of possible vehicles does not establish the owner or driver for RAF section 17(1)(a); the claim was prescribed.
Magoswana v Road Accident Fund (2467/2010) [2019] ZAECGHC 49 (23 April 2019)
The court found that although the plaintiff’s explanation for the delay in bringing the amendment application was poor, the interests of justice required condonation due to the importance of the relief sought, the absence of prejudice to the defendant, and the prospects of success. The amendment did not introduce a new debt or cause of action for prescription purposes, but merely clarified the negligent party responsible for the collision. The defendant was not taken by surprise, as it had already pleaded the negligence of the Mercedes Benz driver. The amendment was therefore allowed, and the…
Source excerpt
Masizana v Road Accident Fund (3224/2012) [2017] ZAECGHC 7 (17 January 2017)
The plaintiff's claim arose from a motor vehicle accident on 29 January 2007. The Transitional Provisions Act 15 of 2012 applies, deeming the cause of action to have arisen on 1 August 2008. Section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act requires that summons be served within three years from the deemed date of accrual, or five years if a claim was lodged. The plaintiff served summons on 23 October 2012, which is outside the five-year prescriptive period calculated from 1 August 2008. The court finds that the claim has prescribed and upholds the defendant's special plea of prescription. The plai…
Source excerpt
Masindi v Road Accident Fund (21738/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 112 (12 June 2015)
The court held that the silence of Section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act regarding the last day of the prescription period falling on a public holiday necessitates the application of Section 4 of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957. This provision ensures that if the last day falls on a public holiday, it is excluded and the following day is included. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff should have served summons before the public holiday, as this would deprive the plaintiff of the full prescribed period and result in an unjust and unintended outcome. The court…
Source excerpt
Explore more
