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
Standard Bank of SA Limited v Dladla (033978/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 581 (3 June 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment to Standard Bank after finding that re-service of a section 129 notice cured the initial defect and no triable defence was shown.
Tsham v Road Accident Fund (622/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 76 (10 December 2024)
The court found that the defendant's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 was ill-founded, as the notice and the prescribed RAF 1 form had been declared unlawful and set aside by a full court of the Gauteng Division. The defendant did not appeal that decision, and no contrary submissions were advanced. The defendant's objection to the validity of the claim was raised more than a year after summons was issued and well outside the sixty-day period prescribed by section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The statutory effect is that, even if the claim was not fully compliant, the defendant's f…
Source excerpt
Maya v Road Accident Fund (2451/2017) [2024] ZAMPMHC 65 (4 December 2024)
A Road Accident Fund claim was dismissed after the court found the plaintiff failed to prove the insured driver caused the collision and failed to provide the full docket.
Molokwe v Road Accident Fund (2023/7522) [2024] ZAGPJHC 582 (19 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed a default judgment application against the Road Accident Fund after finding the plaintiff’s accident version and statutory compliance were unreliable.
Mbele v Minister of Police (D2639/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 62 (31 August 2023)
The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with section 4(1)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act by not serving notice on the Provincial Commissioner. The statutory requirement is peremptory, and substantial compliance does not suffice where the Act expressly requires service on both the National and Provincial Commissioners. The forwarding of the notice by the National Commissioner does not cure the defect. The plaintiff was alerted to the deficiency by the special plea but chose not to seek condonation. As a result, the plaintiff is barred…
Source excerpt
Minister of Police and Others v Ramchandrin (3896/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1086 (18 October 2017)
The High Court granted rescission of an earlier order after finding the respondent had not complied with all statutory registration requirements.
Granor Passi (Pty) Ltd v Polokwane Local Municipality and Another (62169/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 300 (29 June 2017)
The court reviewed a municipality’s refusal to transfer land sold decades earlier, finding the sale and payment sufficiently proved and the refusal irrational.
Ameropa Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Salvage and Stockfeed Parcels CC (7882/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 23 (15 June 2017)
The applicant established, on a prima facie basis, that it is a creditor of the respondent for an amount exceeding R100, supported by the certificate of balance signed by the respondent's sole member and corroborated by monthly statements and correspondence. The respondent's alleged dispute of the debt is not bona fide nor based on reasonable grounds; its explanations are improbable and unsupported by the evidence. The respondent admitted liability and inability to pay in correspondence and settlement negotiations. The applicant complied with statutory service requirements under s 346(4A) of…
Source excerpt
Lak Investments Company N.O (Pty) Ltd v Pressure Advance Technology CC (55018/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 25 (20 February 2014)
The High Court rescinded a final winding-up order after finding that service of the liquidation papers was not properly effected on the company, its employees, or a trade union.
Distell Ltd v Stellenfine Wines (Pty) Ltd and Another (10161/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 232 (5 December 2012)
The High Court dismissed Distell’s urgent application for interim relief over Tell’s cider, finding no prima facie breach of the Liquor Products Act and no basis for hypothetical relief.
Explore more
