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
M M v Road Accident Fund (25/11/2019) [2019] ZAMPMBHC 11; Roelofse AJ (4 December 2019)
The High Court held that the Road Accident Fund could not resile from a compromise on liability because its mistake was negligent, not a justus error.
Combrink and Another v Road Accident Fund and Another (31303/2008; 31306/2008) [2015] ZAGPPHC 760 (5 November 2015)
Regulation 2(4) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations 1997 is inconsistent with section 34 of the Constitution to the extent that it allows prescription to run against minors and persons with legal disability. This provision is unreasonable, conflicts with the enabling Act and the Prescription Act, and unjustifiably impairs constitutional rights. The constitutional defect is remedied by severing the offending words and reading in a reference to sections 13(1)(a) and (i) of the Prescription Act, so that prescription does not run against minors. The order operates prospectively and only applies…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Jwara and Others (19765/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 300 (8 February 2012)
The court held that a POCA restraint order created a legal disability, but the bank still had to give section 129 notice under the National Credit Act before proceeding.
Matsepe N.O. v Road Accident Fund (24988/2002) [2010] ZAGPPHC 591 (5 March 2010)
The court held that Regulation 2(3) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations is valid and applies irrespective of any legal disability suffered by the claimant. The regulation explicitly requires claims to be lodged within two years from the date the claim arose, regardless of incapacity. The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed the validity and constitutionality of this regulation, and the court is bound by those decisions. The plaintiff's claim, lodged outside the prescribed period due to incapacity, is therefore unenforceable and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Geldenhuys & Joubert v Van Wyk and Another; Van Wyk v Geldenhuys & Joubert and Another (471/2003, 472/2003) [2004] ZASCA 121; [2005] 2 All SA 460 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 512 (SCA) (30 November 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 2(3), which requires claims for compensation involving injury caused by unidentified vehicles to be lodged within two years, is valid. The Act expressly empowers the Minister to subordinate the Fund's liability to unidentified vehicle claimants to regulatory conditions. The regulation makes the lodging of the claim within two years a precondition to the existence of the debt, and therefore the Prescription Act does not apply. The distinction between identified and unidentified vehicle claims is fundamental, as the latter creates a statutory rig…
Source excerpt
Explore more
