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
Andrews v Road Accident Fund (3606/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 314 (29 July 2025)
The High Court awarded the plaintiff damages for loss of earning capacity and past medical expenses, and ordered a section 17(4)(a) undertaking.
Mdzinwa v Minister of Police (6176/2014) [2024] ZAWCHC 248; [2024] 4 All SA 866 (WCC) (6 September 2024)
The court awarded damages for past and future loss of earning capacity after a police assault caused the plaintiff to lose an eye and suffer lasting psychological harm.
Lubisi v Road Accident Fund (2015/84674) [2019] ZAGPPHC 562 (22 October 2019)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s damages after finding that an unknown insured driver caused the collision.
Prinsloo v Road Accident Fund (54699/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 532 (16 October 2019)
The High Court set a 20% contingency differential for the plaintiff’s future loss of income and awarded R3,423,735 against the Road Accident Fund.
Mahachi v Road Accident Fund (20784/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 405 (25 May 2018)
The court assessed general damages and loss of earnings for a pedestrian injured in a collision, awarding R1,127,513.70 plus costs and interest.
Topper v Road Accident Fund (52212/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 422 (17 May 2018)
High Court RAF damages claim where merits were conceded. The court awarded general damages, accepted a 20% contingency differential, and ordered future medical costs.
Chakela v Road Accident Fund (33599/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 141 (5 June 2017)
High Court quantum judgment awarding future loss of earnings after finding the plaintiff proved impaired earning capacity and applying a 10% contingency.
Naude v Road Accident Fund (09/35083) [2013] ZAGPJHC 25 (19 February 2013)
The court found that the plaintiff sustained significant injuries in the motor vehicle collision, resulting in ongoing pain, disability, and a reduction in her work productivity. Expert evidence established a guarded prognosis for her spinal injuries and supported a 15-20% reduction in work output. Although the defendant disputed the extent of her loss, the court accepted that, as a self-employed attorney, reduced productivity would likely result in a loss of income. The court applied a contingency differential of 10% between pre- and post-morbid earnings, as recommended by the industrial psy…
Source excerpt
Explore more
