South Africa Case Law

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff Of The High Court, Pretoria and Another (0114226/2023)

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff Of The High Court, Pretoria and Another (0114226/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1336 (20 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0114226/2023

Judge

Twala M L

The High Court held that the RAF’s foreign-claimant directive did not apply retrospectively to a 2015 accident claim lodged in 2017, and dismissed the stay application with costs.

• Stay Of Execution
• Authority Of Settlement
• Retrospective Application
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Constitutional Equality
• Stay-of-execution

Rampul v Trustees of Mangrove Beach Centre Body Corporate and Others (9823/2022P)

Rampul v Trustees of Mangrove Beach Centre Body Corporate and Others (9823/2022P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 81 (15 December 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9823/2022P

Judge

Mossop

The court found that the adjudicator erred in applying the defence of res judicata, as the parties and issues in the prior application were not the same as those before the adjudicator. However, upon considering the merits, the court held that the special rules granting commercial section owners a greater percentage of the vote are lawful and reasonable in the context of a mixed-use scheme. The Sectional Titles Act and Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act expressly permit such differentiation, and the appellant, as a prudent purchaser, should have been aware of the special rules when acqui…

Source excerpt

• Sectional Title Schemes Management
• Body Corporate Rules
• Res Judicata
• Unfair Discrimination
• Participation Quota
• Constitutional Equality

Delport v Road Accident Fund (16825/2016)

Delport v Road Accident Fund (16825/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 213 (24 April 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16825/2016

Judge

Collis

The court found that the plaintiff and the deceased were engaged, cohabited as a family, and shared household responsibilities and expenses, with the deceased acting as the breadwinner. The evidence established a reciprocal duty of support akin to that in a marriage, supported by acceptance from both families and plans for a formal union. The court held that the plaintiff discharged her onus to prove a legally enforceable duty of support, entitling her to protection as a dependent under the Road Accident Fund Act and section 9 of the Constitution. The defendant was found liable for the plaint…

Source excerpt

• Loss Of Support
• Duty To Support
• Cohabitation Rights
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Constitutional Equality

Boutell v Road Accident Fund (324/2017)

Boutell v Road Accident Fund (324/2017) [2018] ZASCA 90; 2018 (5) SA 99 (SCA) (31 May 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

324/2017

Judges

Navsa, Majiedt, Mbha, Plasket, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that voluntary contributions to a retirement annuity fund are not employment benefits and thus cannot be claimed as loss of earnings under the Road Accident Fund Act. The distinction between pension fund contributions, which arise from employment contracts, and retirement annuity contributions, which are voluntary investments, is legally valid. The exclusion of retirement annuity contributions does not constitute unfair discrimination, as the differentiation is not based on inherent characteristics protected by the Constitution. The court affirmed the High Cou…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earnings
• Retirement Annuity
• Pension Fund Distinction
• Constitutional Equality
• Damages Quantification

Harper and Others v Crawford NO and Others (9581/2015)

Harper and Others v Crawford NO and Others (9581/2015) [2017] ZAWCHC 78; 2018 (1) SA 589 (WCC) (30 June 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9581/2015

Judge

Dlodlo

The court held that the Trust Deed must be interpreted according to the intention of the donor at the time of execution, and the language used—'children', 'descendants', 'issue', and 'legal descendants'—refers to biological descendants only. The donor was aware of adoption as an option but did not expressly include adopted children, indicating an intention to exclude them. The court found that the constitutional right to equality does not override the freedom of testation in private trusts, especially where the exclusion is not arbitrary but based on the donor's intention. Section 13 of the T…

Source excerpt

• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Adopted Children Rights
• Freedom Of Testation
• Section 13 Trust Property Control Act
• Constitutional Equality
• Public Policy

St Charles College v Du Hecquet De Rauville and Others (14307/15)

St Charles College v Du Hecquet De Rauville and Others (14307/15) [2017] ZAKZPHC 12; [2017] 3 All SA 358 (KZP) (12 April 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

14307/15

Judge

Jappie JP

The High Court declared a second respondent’s immovable property executable to satisfy unpaid school-fee debts after movable goods proved insufficient.

• Summary Judgment
• Writ Of Execution
• Primary Residence Attachment
• Unfair Discrimination
• Schools Act
• Constitutional Equality

Solidarity and Others v SA Police Services and Others (JS 469/12)

Solidarity and Others v SA Police Services and Others (JS 469/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 120; [2015] 7 BLLR 708 (LC) (2 April 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 469/12

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the SAPS Collective Agreement, as implemented together with the Employment Equity Plan, constituted a valid affirmative action measure under section 15(1) of the Employment Equity Act and section 9(2) of the Constitution. The Agreement did not propagate rigid quotas but rather set flexible numerical targets, which are permissible. The implementation was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as promotions were made according to multiple criteria, including seniority, qualifications, and performance, within the framework of demographic representivity. The measures did not create…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Collective Agreement
• Unfair Discrimination
• Numerical Targets
• Constitutional Equality

C v C (8937/2013)

C v C (8937/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 447 (12 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8937/2013

Judge

Mabasa

Divorce judgment awarding the wife monthly maintenance and lump sums for housing, furniture, relocation, and a vehicle after a 29-year marriage.

• Maintenance After Divorce
• Section 7 2 Divorce Act
• Lump Sum Award
• Spousal Support
• Constitutional Equality
• Division Of Assets

Solidarity obo Barnard v South African Police Service (165/13)

Solidarity obo Barnard v South African Police Service (165/13) [2013] ZASCA 177; 2014 (2) SA 1 (SCA); [2014] 2 BLLR 107 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 319 (SCA); (2014) 35 ILJ 416 (SCA) (28 November 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

165/13

Judges

NAVSA, PONNAN, TSHIQI, THERON, ZONDI

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Barnard was discriminated against on the basis of race, as her non-appointment was solely due to her being white, despite being the best candidate. The SAPS failed to discharge the statutory onus of proving that the discrimination was fair. The National Commissioner’s justification—that the appointment would not address representivity and that the post was not 'critical'—was contrived and unsupported by evidence. The Employment Equity Plan cannot operate as an absolute bar to the appointment of non-designated candidates, and numerical targets must not be…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Unfair Discrimination
• Public Service Appointments
• Service Delivery
• Constitutional Equality

Kalikhan, Anoj t/a Tri-star Logistics v Firstrand Bank Ltd (2011/31466)

Kalikhan, Anoj t/a Tri-star Logistics v Firstrand Bank Ltd (2011/31466) [2013] ZAGPJHC 133 (9 May 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/31466

Judge

Miltz

The High Court refused to rescind a default money judgment despite the creditor’s written consent, holding that consent alone is not “good cause” under rule 31(2)(b).

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Good Cause Requirement
• Rule 31 2 B
• Constitutional Equality
• Separation Of Powers
• Rescission-of-judgment