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
Ntshosa Madiba Incorporated v Mokhawane and Others (8447/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 120 (23 June 2025)
The High Court granted the Road Accident Fund leave to intervene, discharged an ex parte rule nisi, and dismissed an application concerning retention of contingency fees.
Theodosiou and Others v Schindlers Attorneys and Others (A5060/22) [2024] ZAGPJHC 833 (28 August 2024)
Appeal dismissed against an exception. The court held that a fee-settlement compromise was not a contingency fee agreement and that non-compliance with section 4 did not invalidate the settlement orders.
Van Der Westhuizen v Road Accident Fund (21947/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 742 (29 July 2024)
The court held that the statutory cap of 25% under section 2(2) of the Contingency Fee Act 66 of 1997 includes VAT. The Legislature, when enacting the CFA, was aware of the VAT Act and did not specify that the cap excludes VAT. Section 64(1) of the VAT Act deems any price charged by a vendor to include VAT. Allowing VAT to be charged above the cap would disadvantage clients and undermine the purpose of the CFA, which is to enhance access to justice and regulate legal fees. The court followed the principle in Masango v Road Accident Fund and Others, finding that VAT is not recoverable above th…
Source excerpt
Oosthuizen and Another v Rene Fouche Incorporated and Others (022383/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 683 (26 July 2024)
The court found that the contingency fee agreement concluded by the attorneys was invalid and unenforceable due to non-compliance with the Contingency Fees Act, both procedurally and substantively. The agreement was concluded too late, at a stage when litigation risk was minimal, and the attorneys failed to present the agreement and required affidavits to the court as mandated by section 4 of the Act. The attorneys overreached by applying a 100% success fee mark-up to fees incurred before the agreement and after the litigation risk had dissipated, including charging for work done by a differe…
Source excerpt
Sethonga and Another v Wehmeyers Attorneys (2022-042316) [2024] ZAGPPHC 14 (12 January 2024)
The court found that the written fee agreements between the applicants and the respondent did not constitute contingency fee agreements as defined by the Contingency Fees Act. The agreements lacked the formalities required by the Act, and the objective evidence, including signed documents and explanations provided to the applicants, supported the respondent's version. Declaring the agreements to be contingency fee agreements would render them void due to illegality, which was not the relief sought by the applicants. The applicants did not challenge the reasonableness of the fees, and the agre…
Source excerpt
Legal Practice Council v Rubushe (1004/2022) [2023] ZASCA 167 (1 December 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Mr Rubushe engaged in serious misconduct involving dishonesty, including entering into a contingency fee agreement contrary to the Contingency Fees Act, attempting to overreach his client, submitting fraudulent bills of costs, and withholding client funds. The High Court correctly found him not fit and proper to remain on the roll, but materially misdirected itself by imposing suspension rather than striking off. The Court held that dishonesty by a legal practitioner generally requires striking off unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were absen…
Source excerpt
Cassim and Others v Road Accident Fund (2005/15914) [2022] ZAGPJHC 763 (23 September 2022)
Default judgment against the RAF after its defence was struck out, with 80% liability, damages awards for six plaintiffs, and a curator ad litem for one claimant.
Fourie v Spruyt Incorporated Attorneys and Others (30607/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 457 (1 July 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a dispute about contingency-fee and hourly-fee agreements, finding arguable prospects under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Legal Practice Council v Rubushe (181/2020) [2022] ZAECMKHC 37 (7 June 2022)
The court found that the attorney engaged in unethical overreaching in relation to contingency fee billing and non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Christopher Finance Proprietary Limited v Steyn Smal Incorporated and Others (45995/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 527 (28 May 2022)
The High Court granted an interim interdict preserving RAF claim proceeds pending a final ruling on whether the applicant held ceded rights to fees and disbursements.
Explore more
