Jere v Road Accident Fund (5843/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 149 (4 August 2025)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
5843/2024
Judge
Mashamba
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.
Shayimbvu v Road Accident Fund (Leave to Appeal) (039384/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 784 (30 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
039384/22
Judge
GN Moshoana
The High Court dismissed a road accident claim for loss of earning capacity, finding the plaintiff failed to prove serious injury or diminished earning capacity.
Temo v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2021/44430) [2025] ZAGPPHC 736 (21 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
2021/44430
Judge
Swanepoel
High Court damages trial arising from a train accident. The plaintiff proved only soft tissue injuries, not a fracture or loss of earning capacity, and recovered R285,000.
N.Z v Member of the Executive Council for Health - Western Cape (Leave to Appeal) (8734/2017) [2025] ZAWCHC 290 (15 July 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
8734/2017
Judge
R K Parker
The High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for leave to appeal in a medical negligence matter, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason.
Technical Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v RTS Industries and Others (17470/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 292 (14 July 2025)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
17470/2014
Judge
Nuku
The High Court ordered the respondents to pay party-and-party costs after the merits were settled, finding their abandonment of the plant justified a costs award.
Molefe v Eskom Pension and Provident Fund and Others (93895/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 721 (11 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
93895/2019
Judges
R G Tolmay, M J Teffo, R Francis-Subbiah
The Full Court found that the court a quo erred in resolving the dispute regarding the amount repayable by Mr Molefe to the Fund solely on the papers, without proper consideration of the divergent expert actuarial evidence and the factual disputes regarding the calculation and flow of money. The court held that the matter required referral to oral evidence before a different judge to properly determine the quantum, as the actuaries' reports and supplementary affidavits revealed substantial disputes not amenable to resolution on affidavit. The court rejected the argument that the dispute had a…