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
Jere v Road Accident Fund (5843/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 149 (4 August 2025)
Default judgment partly granted in a Road Accident Fund claim. The court awarded R1,122,830 for loss of earnings, ordered an undertaking for future medical expenses, and postponed general damages.
Pridin Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Boutique Leasing Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (046326-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 779 (1 August 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish extreme urgency justifying the departure from the timelines prescribed by Rule 6(5)(b). The applicants were aware of the default judgment and attachment of property by 24 June 2025 but delayed in launching urgent proceedings. The court was not satisfied that the applicants made out a case for urgency or condonation. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or provide sufficient evidence to challenge the claim amount. The application for a stay of execution and interdict was therefore struck from the roll for la…
Source excerpt
Moletji v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others (29793/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 775 (30 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to stop a sale in execution, holding the applicant lacked standing and had proven no valid sale agreement.
Shaya Phansi Projects CC v Montgomery Plant Hire and Construction CC and Another (2849/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 36 (25 July 2025)
The court found that the Applicant failed to establish that the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted. Service of the summons was effected at the registered address per the rules, and substantial compliance was achieved. Any confusion or prejudice resulted from the Applicant's own conduct in representing itself as a close corporation and failing to update CIPC records. The Applicant did not follow the correct procedure under Rule 31(5)(d), but this did not bar the application. However, the Applicant failed to set out a bona fide defence or good cause for rescission. The alleged d…
Source excerpt
Rufuro N.O Executrix obo Estate Late Nyamutsahuni v Road Accident Fund (23457/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 751 (24 July 2025)
Default judgment in a Road Accident Fund claim was granted for past loss of earnings after the defendant’s late notice to defend was set aside as an abuse of process.
Segole v Road Accident Fund (16923/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 725 (21 July 2025)
The High Court refused default judgment in a Road Accident Fund loss-of-support claim, finding improper prosecution by a trust account advocate, unfair late amendment, and inadmissible quantum evidence.
Hlabisa and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (B1133/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 724 (17 July 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to a final interdict restraining the sale in execution of their property. Although the applicants paid substantial amounts towards the arrears, they did not pay all amounts due, including monthly instalments following the default judgment, as required to reinstate the credit agreement under section 129(3) of the National Credit Act. The disputed facts regarding the precise arrears and the need for an audit of the account meant that, applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter had to be decided in favor of the respondent. Th…
Source excerpt
Zulu v Road Accident Fund (2023/024137) [2025] ZAGPPHC 714 (10 July 2025)
The court held that the defendant, having been barred from delivering its plea, could not automatically re-enter the litigation or plead to the amended particulars of claim without a formal application to uplift the bar. The amendment of the plaintiff's claim did not constitute the introduction of new issues nor did it entitle the defendant to plead afresh. The only route available to the defendant was to apply for upliftment of the bar or for condonation, which was not done. Allowing automatic upliftment would undermine the plaintiff's rights and the court's discretion, and infringe the audi…
Source excerpt
Meyer v Road Accident Fund (31809/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 672 (4 July 2025)
The High Court refused default judgment against the Road Accident Fund, finding no credible proof that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by negligent driving of an unidentified vehicle.
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.
Explore more
