Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Delict [2025] ZALMPPHC 48

Maroga and Another v Road Accident Fund (952/2024 ; 5644/2023)

Maroga and Another v Road Accident Fund (952/2024 ; 5644/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 48 (18 March 2025)

Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
952/2024 ; 5644/2023
Judge
G.C Muller

The court held that in default judgment applications for damages arising from motor vehicle collisions, the provisions of section 1(1)(a) of the Apportionment of Damages Act apply. The court has discretion to hear oral evidence and must evaluate whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. In both cases, the plaintiffs failed to keep a proper lookout before crossing the road and were found to be negligent. The first plaintiff, Jeremiah Lesedi Maroga, was held responsible for 70% of his injuries, with the defendant liable for 30% of proven or agreed damages. The second plaintiff, Meriam…

Source excerpt

  • Road Accident Fund Act
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Apportionment Of Damages
  • Default Judgment
  • Personal Injury
  • Civil Procedure
Read case analysis
Administrative Law [2011] ZAECGHC 33

Centre for Social Accountability v Secretary of Parliament and Others (298/2010)

Centre for Social Accountability v Secretary of Parliament and Others (298/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 33; 2011 (5) SA 279 (ECG); [2011] 4 All SA 181 (ECG) (28 July 2011)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
298/2010
Judge
Alkema

The court held that the applicant had locus standi under section 78(2) of PAIA, having exhausted all internal appeal procedures. The refusal to disclose the Schedules was not justified under section 34(1), as the information related to official conduct of members of Parliament and did not fall within the protected sphere of personal privacy. Even if section 34(1) applied, the public interest override in section 46 mandated disclosure because the records would reveal evidence of substantial contravention of the law in the administration of parliamentary travel vouchers, and the public interest…

Source excerpt

  • Promotion Of Access To Information Act
  • Public Interest Override
  • Right To Privacy
  • Parliamentary Accountability
  • Civil Procedure
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.