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
Mahlokoane v Road Accident Fund (36670/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 707 (28 November 2018)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund wholly liable after a rear-end collision on the N14. The plaintiff’s version was uncontested and no contributory negligence was proved.
Chetty v Road Accident Fund (98017/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 892 (8 December 2017)
The High Court found the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages after accepting that an unknown driver caused the collision.
M & G Media Ltd v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1242/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 35; [2013] 2 All SA 316 (GNP); 2013 (3) SA 591 (GNP) (14 February 2013)
High Court judgment on PAIA access to the Mbeki-appointed Zimbabwe election report, holding that the state failed to justify refusal and ordering disclosure.
Giesecke & Devrient Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Safety and Security (749/2010) [2011] ZASCA 220; 2012 (2) SA 137 (SCA); [2012] 2 All SA 56 (SCA) (30 November 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in excluding the hearsay statements of Dube and Gumede under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The interests of justice required their admission, given the inability to secure their attendance and the significant probative value of their statements, which were made under oath and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. However, the appellant failed to prove its main claim for the full amount stolen, as the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that Inspector Kgathi actively participated in the robber…
Source excerpt
Mdiza v Road Accident Fund (138/08) [2009] ZAECGHC 62 (28 August 2009)
The court found the evidence of the plaintiff's witness, Mr Mnamatha, to be credible, consistent, and supported by the probabilities of the case. His version was preferred over the defendant's witnesses, whose accounts were riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, both in content and demeanour, and were inconsistent with their prior statements. The court held that the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent in veering across the centre line, thereby causing the collision with the plaintiff's husband's vehicle. The defendant is therefore liable to compensate the plaintiff for damag…
Source excerpt
Explore more
