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
Harmse v Chartwell Country College (Pty) Ltd and Another (2021/3925) [2025] ZAGPJHC 509 (23 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused in a delict claim arising from an abseiling injury, the court finding no reasonable prospect of success on the causation issues.
Malindi v Gold Vally Lounge (2021/28721) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1328 (18 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a patron’s slip-and-fall claim after finding the complex owners and/or City Property should have been joined as joint wrongdoers.
R.A v Head of Department of Education, Northern Cape Province and Others (966/16) [2024] ZANCHC 85 (6 September 2024)
The High Court held that the State’s liability under section 60(1) of the Schools Act is statutory, so no apportionment with the bus operator could be made.
Schalk Melchior Grobberlaar Marietjie Grobbelaar v Busamed Bram Fishcher International Airport Hospital (Pty) Ltd and Another (2674/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 207 (15 September 2021)
The High Court upheld an exception to a third-party notice, finding it vague and embarrassing because it did not clearly plead a delictual cause of action.
Minister of Police v Underwriters at Lloyds of Londo (1212/19) [2021] ZASCA 72 (8 June 2021)
The court held that the proposed amendment to the Minister's plea was bad in law and excipiable. It found that SBV could not be vicariously liable for a theft committed against itself by its employee, Ms Nkosi, and that the notion of SBV participating in the robbery as both victim and wrongdoer was legally untenable. The principles of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and in pari delicto have not been applied to delictual claims in South African law outside contract and enrichment, and there was no basis to extend them here. The court further held that SBV and the Minister could not be consider…
Source excerpt
Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Odfjell Asia III Pte Ltd and Another (AC 78/2008) [2021] ZAWCHC 18 (9 February 2021)
High Court admiralty judgment on damage to a pipeline caused when the Bow Sun’s anchor snagged during berthing at Mossel Bay.
Erasmus N.O v MEC for Health, NC Province (1342/2014) [2021] ZANCHC 1 (8 January 2021)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35 discovery application for a confidential settlement agreement, finding the amount paid by a co-defendant was irrelevant and protected by confidentiality.
Sasfin Bank Limited v Amoils and Another (1120/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 237 (30 September 2020)
The court held that the common law position, as confirmed in Pickitup, is that joint wrongdoers are ordinarily entitled to recover a contribution from their fellow joint wrongdoers unless there is deliberate malfeasance. The Companies Act does not exclude this remedy, and section 218(3) expressly preserves common law rights. The third party, as a co-director, could be held liable for a portion of any judgment against the defendants. The claim for a monetary judgment is premature, but a declaratory order is competent. The third party notice contains sufficient allegations, and further particul…
Source excerpt
Dludlu v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health of the Mpumalanga Provincial Government (46837/12) [2020] ZAGPPHC 388 (30 July 2020)
The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is contractual, arising from the agreement for medical treatment upon admission to Embhuleni Hospital. The Apportionment of Damages Act does not apply to contractual claims, even where negligence is alleged. The fact that the plaintiff previously claimed and settled with the RAF for damages arising from the same injury does not preclude a separate contractual claim against the hospital for negligent treatment. The insured driver and the hospital staff are not joint wrongdoers as contemplated by the Act, as their respective liabil…
Source excerpt
Pikitup Johannesburg SOC Limited v Nair and Others (9524/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 210; [2019] 3 All SA 899 (GJ); 2019 (5) SA 540 (GJ) (16 May 2019)
The court held that the common law recognises a right of contribution among joint wrongdoers, except where the conduct is intentional and attracts moral opprobrium. Section 176(2) of the MFMA does not preclude a defendant from claiming a contribution from other officials who are joint wrongdoers. The authorities cited by the third parties do not support the proposition that such a claim is barred; rather, they indicate that the right to contribution exists unless the conduct is turpitudinous. The statutory context and the equitable nature of contribution support the defendant's entitlement to…
Source excerpt
Explore more
