South Africa Case Law

S.P.M v Road Accident Fund (A81/2024; 4636/2022)

S.P.M v Road Accident Fund (A81/2024; 4636/2022) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 66 (30 July 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A81/2024; 4636/2022

Judges

Ratshibvumo, Bhengu, Ngwenya

The court found that the deceased had voluntarily assumed the duty of support for his mother and minor siblings after the father abandoned the family. The appellant's evidence, corroborated by witnesses and an affidavit, established that she was indigent and dependent on the deceased's contributions. The court held that the absence of formal documentation was not fatal, given the realities of informal employment and the employer's confirmation of the deceased's earnings. The court applied reasonable contingency deductions as per the actuarial report and concluded that the appellant had discha…

Source excerpt

• Loss Of Support
• Duty Of Support
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Contingency Deductions
• Dependants Claim
• Customary Law Application

Madzivhanana v Road Accident Fund (22319/2021)

Madzivhanana v Road Accident Fund (22319/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 321 (11 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22319/2021

Judge

Mkhabela

Default judgment was granted for loss of support after the Road Accident Fund’s postponement bid was dismissed and actuarial evidence was accepted.

• Loss Of Support
• Dependants Claim
• Default Judgment
• Quantum Of Damages
• Loss-of-support
• Road-accident-fund

Mbangula v Road Accident Fund (07999/16)

Mbangula v Road Accident Fund (07999/16) [2017] ZAGPJHC 435 (8 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07999/16

Judge

Strydom

The court found the plaintiff proved liability in a dependants’ claim against the Road Accident Fund. Quantum was postponed and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.

• Dependants Claim
• Motor Vehicle Accident
• Negligence
• Separation Of Liability And Quantum
• Road-accident-fund
• Dependants-claims

Khiba v Road Accident Fund (2012/24278)

Khiba v Road Accident Fund (2012/24278) [2015] ZAGPJHC 230 (14 August 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2012/24278

Judge

E F Dippenaar

High Court loss-of-support claim under the RAF Act arising from an unidentified vehicle. The court found both drivers negligent and apportioned liability 70/30.

• Loss Of Support
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Negligence
• Dependants Claim
• Road-accident-fund-act

H.B.A v Road Accident Fund (6070/2013)

H.B.A v Road Accident Fund (6070/2013) [2015] ZAKZDHC 45 (26 May 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

6070/2013

Judge

Jeffrey

High Court quantum ruling in a dependants’ claim for loss of support. The court fixed the deceased’s income, support period, and contingencies for actuarial calculation.

• Loss Of Support
• Quantum Of Damages
• Contingencies
• Dependants Claim
• Loss-of-support
• Quantum-of-damages

Ferreira v Road Accident Fund (1710/2011)

Ferreira v Road Accident Fund (1710/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 85 (11 July 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1710/2011

Judge

J.M. Roberson

In a dependants’ claim for loss of support, the court fixed contingency deductions, accepted the deceased would likely have taken employment, and awarded damages.

• Loss Of Support
• Contingency Deductions
• Remarriage Contingency
• Quantum Of Damages
• Dependants Claim
• Loss-of-support

Hlomza v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (1548/2007)

Hlomza v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (1548/2007) [2012] ZAECMHC 14; 2013 (1) SACR 591 (ECM) (1 September 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1548/2007

Judges

D van Zyl, L P Pakade, M Notununu

The court held that the respondents, as police officials in control of the deceased's possession of a service firearm, owed a legal duty to act on information indicating his unfitness to possess such a weapon. The admitted facts established that the deceased had threatened violence, was subject to a protection order, and had a deteriorating domestic situation. The respondents' failure to investigate and remove the firearm was both wrongful and negligent. The court found that the death of the deceased by suicide, following his shooting of the appellant, was a reasonably foreseeable consequence…

Source excerpt

• Dependants Claim
• Wrongful Death
• Negligence
• Causation
• State Liability
• Foreseeability

Road Accident Fund v Krawa (CA279/2010)

Road Accident Fund v Krawa (CA279/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 61; 2012 (2) SA 346 (ECG) (20 October 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA279/2010

Judges

D. Van Zyl, I. Schoeman, N. Dambuza

The court distinguished between merits and quantum in a RAF claim, allowing amendment on the deceased’s duty of support but not on locus standi.

• Dependants Claim
• Loss Of Support
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Rule 37 Pre Trial Conference
• Quantum Of Damages
• Loss-of-support

Mokadi (Moletsane) v Road Accident Fund (4994/2009)

Mokadi (Moletsane) v Road Accident Fund (4994/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 124 (18 August 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4994/2009

Judge

Rampai

The court found the Road Accident Fund liable on the merits after accepting evidence that an unidentified driver negligently caused a fatal minibus collision.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Negligence
• Dependants Claim
• Quantum Separation
• Burden Of Proof
• Road-accident-fund

Maimela and Another v Makhado Municipality and Another (269/10)

Maimela and Another v Makhado Municipality and Another (269/10) [2011] ZASCA 69; 2011 (2) SACR 339 (SCA); 2011 (6) SA 533 (SCA) (20 May 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

269/10

Judges

MPATI, CACHALIA, MAJIEDT

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence of necessity was correctly upheld by the trial court. Nkuna was subjected to a murderous attack by a hostile crowd while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The evidence established that he fired shots while being assaulted on the ground, with the intention to ward off his attackers and avert imminent death. The court found that it was objectively reasonable for Nkuna to fire his weapon under the circumstances, even though innocent persons were injured or killed. The defence of necessity does not require the action to be dire…

Source excerpt

• Defence Of Necessity
• Wrongfulness
• Vicarious Liability
• Dependants Claim
• Personal Injury
• Loss Of Support