South Africa Case Law

Mqikela v Pristo Response Trading (JS562/22)

Mqikela v Pristo Response Trading (JS562/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 243 (18 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS562/22

Judge

M Makhura

The court found that the plaintiff's dismissal was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a direct response to her referral of an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA. The evidence showed that the retrenchment process was initiated within 24 hours of the referral, and the defendant's explanations regarding operational requirements and outsourcing were inconsistent and contradicted by documentary and oral evidence. The court applied the Afrox test and concluded that the dismissal would not have occurred but for the plaintiff's exercise of her statutory right. The referral…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Section 187 1 D
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Compensation
• Costs Of Suit

Bester obo C & E.N v Road Accident Fund (3200/2019)

Bester obo C & E.N v Road Accident Fund (3200/2019) [2024] ZAECMKHC 67 (30 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3200/2019

Judge

Metu

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 38(2) to allow evidence of past hospital and medical expenses to be adduced by affidavit, as the defendant did not oppose this method and the evidence was undisputed. The court found that payment of medical expenses by a medical aid scheme does not absolve the defendant of liability to the plaintiff. The principle of res inter alios acta applies, meaning the defendant cannot benefit from payments made by third parties such as medical aids. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the expenses from the defendant and is obliged to reimburse the medical…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Collateral Benefits
• Medical Expenses Reimbursement
• Rule 38 Evidence
• Subrogation
• Costs Of Suit

Sibuyi N.O obo MMG v Road Accident Fund (RAF 68/2022)

Sibuyi N.O obo MMG v Road Accident Fund (RAF 68/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 92 (27 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

RAF 68/2022

Judge

S Mfenyana

The court found that the plaintiff had proved, on a balance of probabilities, entitlement to general damages and future loss of earnings for [M…M…G] arising from severe injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision. The expert evidence was uncontested, establishing permanent neurocognitive and neurophysical impairment, functional unemployability, and significant loss of amenities of life. The court accepted the actuarial scenario with a 25% post-morbid contingency deduction, factoring in the disability grant received. The quantum awarded for future loss of earnings was R999,551.25, and fo…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• General Damages
• Future Loss Of Earnings
• Contingency Deduction
• Curator Ad Litem
• Costs Of Suit

Fourie Fismer Incorporated v Road Accident Fund (25437/2021)

Fourie Fismer Incorporated v Road Accident Fund (25437/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 815 (3 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25437/2021

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court ordered the Road Accident Fund to pay the outstanding balance, plus interest from service of the application and costs, after the claim was partly settled.

• Service Level Agreement
• Mora Interest
• Monetary Obligation
• Costs Of Suit
• Mora-interest
• Costs-of-suit

Heunis v Heunis (989/2020)

Heunis v Heunis (989/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 28 (7 May 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

989/2020

Judge

Rugunanan

In this divorce action, the High Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs after finding his conduct and stronger finances justified the order.

• Divorce Act Section 10
• Costs Of Suit
• Primary Care And Residency
• Maintenance For Minor Child
• Accrual System
• Divorce-costs

L.H (Born C) v E.H (989/2020)

L.H (Born C) v E.H (989/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 27 (7 May 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

989/2020

Judge

Rugunanan

In a divorce costs ruling, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs after finding his conduct and litigation stance unreasonable.

• Divorce
• Maintenance
• Primary Care
• Accrual System
• Costs Of Suit
• Costs-of-suit

Coetzee v Road Accident Fund (71483/2016)

Coetzee v Road Accident Fund (71483/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 179 (25 May 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

71483/2016

Judge

Makhoba

The court awarded the plaintiff R160,000 general damages and R428,298 for loss of earnings in a Road Accident Fund claim, with costs and 10% apportionment.

• Road Accident Fund
• General Damages
• Loss Of Earnings
• Actuarial Calculation
• Contingencies
• Costs Of Suit

V v M (19398/2014)

V v M (19398/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 652 (25 July 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19398/2014

Judge

N P Mali

The High Court found a tacit universal partnership between long-term cohabitants and awarded the plaintiff 33% of the joint assets after dissolution.

• Universal Partnership
• Cohabitation
• Division Of Joint Assets
• Liquidation Of Partnership
• Costs Of Suit
• Universal-partnership

Georgiou v Tyres 2000 (Heriotdale) (Pty) Limited (33788/2014)

Georgiou v Tyres 2000 (Heriotdale) (Pty) Limited (33788/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 206 (16 September 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

33788/2014

Judge

Wanless

High Court dispute over a renovation joint venture: the court rejected the defendant’s overdraft-interest expense and ordered payment of the plaintiff’s claimed materials costs.

• Oral Contract
• Work Done And Materials Supplied
• Joint Venture
• Contractual Interpretation
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest
• Costs Of Suit

De Jager N.O and Another v Armaments Corporation of South Africa Limited t/a ARMSCOR (3113/2013)

De Jager N.O and Another v Armaments Corporation of South Africa Limited t/a ARMSCOR (3113/2013) [2015] ZAECGHC 83 (1 September 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3113/2013

Judge

Pickering

The High Court granted liquidators payment for partially completed work and spares, and held Armscor could not withhold 10% for BEE non-compliance.

• Liquidation
• Executory Contracts
• Bee Compliance
• Contractual Damages
• Interest On Judgment
• Costs Of Suit