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
Molefe and Another v General Accident Insurance Company South Africa Ltd. (84/94) [1995] ZASCA 134 (22 November 1995)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the objective evidence supported an inference of negligence by the insured driver and set aside absolution from the instance.
National Employers' General Insurance Company Ltd. v Roberts (264/92) [1993] ZASCA 150; 1994 (1) SA 38 (AD); (29 September 1993)
The court held that the respondent's absence from base was properly authorised under regulation 32(2)(g) of the Defence Act regulations, as he was ordered or required to reside away from the base due to lack of accommodation. The statutory limitation on damages in section 22(1) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act did not apply, as the respondent was returning to his base from authorised leave. The court rejected the appellant's narrow interpretation of 'authorised leave', finding that both the legislative history and the regulations supported a broader meaning. The appeal was dismis…
Source excerpt
Leine N.O. v National Employers' General Insurance Company Ltd. (189/91) [1993] ZASCA 1 (8 January 1993)
The court held the driver negligently mounted the sidewalk and struck the pedestrian there, making the insurer liable under the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.
Guardian National Insurance Company Ltd. v Van Gool NO (330/91) [1992] ZASCA 96; 1992 (4) SA 61 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 287 (A) (29 May 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a minor who suffers bodily injury as a result of a delict has a legal right to claim compensation for prospective patrimonial loss, including future medical and hospital expenses, from the wrongdoer. This right exists independently and concurrently with the minor's right to parental support. The fact that the parent is obliged to support the minor does not exclude the minor's delictual right to claim such compensation. The action was properly instituted by Van Gool in his representative capacity as father and natural guardian of Catherine, who is the true…
Source excerpt
Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. v Verdun Estates (Pty) Ltd. (524/88) [1990] ZASCA 27; 1990 (2) SA 693 (AD); (26 March 1990)
The court held that the insurer's statutory right of recourse under section 28 of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act only arises if the payment to the third party was made under section 21 or 26 of the Act. In this case, the underlying claim by Saayman against the insurer had prescribed before payment was made, as the respondents were not parties to the undertaking not to plead prescription and were not advised of it. The payment was therefore not made under section 21 of the Act, but pursuant to a separate agreement. As a result, the insurer's statutory right of recourse did not aris…
Source excerpt
Santam Insurance Ltd. v Joliffe (104/88) [1989] ZASCA 143 (17 November 1989)
Appeal over damages for a child’s future loss of earnings after a car accident was dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge’s contingency-based assessment.
Abbass v Allianz Insurance Ltd. (222/88) [1989] ZASCA 109 (21 September 1989)
The court held that section 24(2) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act applies only to the statutory prescription period, not a privately extended one.
SA Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. v Cilliers (389/85) [1987] ZASCA 119 (30 September 1987)
Appeal and cross-appeal over damages from a motor collision. The court mostly upheld the awards, reduced future loss of earning capacity, and restored past loss of earnings.
Guardian Nasionale Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Weyers (117/87) [1987] ZASCA 114; [1988] 4 All SA 1 (AD) (29 September 1987)
The court held that the respondent's attorney, Hoffman, acted reasonably in relying on the information provided by the police and the insurance token, both of which indicated the insurer but were incorrect. The circumstances were unusual and unexpected, as it was rare for the police to record incorrect insurance information or for a token to be invalid yet displayed. There was no negligence on the part of Hoffman, as he had no reason to suspect the information was incorrect, nor was it standard practice to verify the insurance declaration in every case. The court found that these circumstance…
Source excerpt
President Insurance Company Ltd. v Retsos (116/87) [1987] ZASCA 113; [1988] 1 All SA 344 (A) (29 September 1987)
The court held that negligent omission by a legal secretary and inadequate attorney supervision were not “special circumstances” to excuse prescription under the Act.
Explore more
