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
Ceyster v Road Accident Fund (5469/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 343 (11 August 2025)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages after finding an unidentified driver solely caused the collision.
Kotze v Road Accident Fund (16725/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 303 (24 July 2025)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund solely liable after finding the insured driver negligently turned into the road without keeping a proper lookout.
Phahlane v Road Accident Fund (21973/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 706 (21 July 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff, as a passenger, only needed to prove minimal negligence on the part of the insured driver to succeed in her claim against the Road Accident Fund. The evidence, including the plaintiff's testimony and supporting documents, established that the driver was speeding and lost control, causing the accident. The defendant failed to present any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, and the plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged. The court accepted that the plaintiff contributed to her injuries by not wearing a seatbelt and boarding an overloaded vehicl…
Source excerpt
Barnard and Another v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others (9952/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 705 (14 July 2025)
The High Court held the State liable after a Working for Water herbicide treatment contaminated irrigation water and damaged crops on a Limpopo farm.
Moemise v Road Accident Fund (8386/21) [2025] ZAGPPHC 686 (3 July 2025)
The court found both the insured driver and the plaintiff negligent in a pedestrian road accident, apportioning liability 70% to the Road Accident Fund and 30% to the plaintiff.
Kumalo v Road Accident Fund (52996/15) [2025] ZAGPPHC 693 (1 July 2025)
Pedestrian collision claim against the Road Accident Fund. The court found the insured driver solely liable, awarded R500,000 general damages, and rejected loss of earnings.
Jose v Road Accident Fund (76402/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 682 (1 July 2025)
A pedestrian injured when a reversing vehicle struck him proved liability against the Road Accident Fund, but failed to prove loss of earnings.
Mdlalose v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/5898) [2025] ZAGPJHC 637 (25 June 2025)
The High Court held PRASA liable after finding that Joseph Mdlalose was pushed from a moving train with open doors and that its defences failed.
Gasa v Road Accident Fund (35348/21) [2025] ZAGPPHC 618 (17 June 2025)
The court found that both the insured driver and the plaintiff were negligent. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not observe the plaintiff approaching from behind before making a U-turn. The plaintiff, however, also failed to keep a proper lookout or was driving too fast, as he did not avoid the collision despite having the opportunity to do so. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act, the court determined that the defendant (Road Accident Fund) should be liable for 75% of the plaintiff's proven damages, with the plaintiff bearing 25% responsibility for the accident…
Source excerpt
Makhubela v PRASA (23147/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 597 (26 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a passenger’s damages claim against PRASA after finding his account of falling from a train highly improbable and unproven.
Explore more
