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
Maboe v Road Accident Fund (2985/2020) [2024] ZAMPMHC 24 (12 March 2024)
The High Court held that a Road Accident Fund claim in a hit-and-run matter had prescribed because the only proven lodgement was out of time.
Road Accident Fund v Smith (334/05) [2006] ZASCA 172; 2007 (1) SA 172 (SCA) (28 September 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that compliance with regulation 2(1)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act is a precondition to the Fund's liability to compensate a claimant, but not to the existence of the claim itself. The Fund, as the beneficiary of the regulation, is competent to waive compliance, even though the provision is couched in peremptory terms. The Fund's conduct in this case—engaging with the merits, requesting further information, and indicating a willingness to concede the merits—was inconsistent with a challenge to enforceability based on non-compliance. The Fund only raised the…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Makwetlane (649/2002) [2005] ZASCA 1; 2005 (4) SA 51 (SCA) (17 February 2005)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 2(1)(c) is not ultra vires the Road Accident Fund Act. The regulation, which requires claimants in hit-and-run cases to submit an affidavit to the police within 14 days of being able to do so, is a legitimate regulatory measure aimed at deterring fraud and facilitating bona fide claims. The regulation does not substantively attenuate the right to compensation, but rather sets a reasonable procedural precondition for claims where the identity of the driver is unknown. The court found that the regulation is rationally connected to the legislative…
Source excerpt
Explore more
