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
Road Accident Fund v Sekgala (752/2015) [2025] ZALMPPHC 44 (14 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application, holding that its explanation for default was unreasonable and no bona fide defence was shown.
Road Accident Fund v Sekgala (752/2015) [2025] ZALMPPHC 51 (14 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission bid, finding no reasonable explanation for default and no bona fide defence to the default judgment.
Road Accidents Fund v Clayton (139/2001) [2002] ZASCA 77; 2003 (2) SA 215 (SCA) (31 May 2002)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that article 43 applies to all claims for compensation under article 40, including those subject to the limitation in article 46. Article 46 does not create liability but limits liability created by article 40. There is no warrant for reading article 43 as inapplicable to limited claims. The absence of cross-referencing or exclusionary language between articles 43 and 46 supports the general applicability of article 43. The Fund may invoke article 43 in respect of any component of a claim, but the claimant retains the right to prioritize which component is sat…
Source excerpt
Lieberman v Santam Ltd (168/98) [2000] ZASCA 173 (29 May 2000)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a settlement agreement created a new contractual debt, so the appellant’s claim was not prescribed under the Act.
South African Eagle Insurance Company Ltd. v Van Der Merwe NO (457/96) [1998] ZASCA 12; 1998 (2) SA 1091 (SCA); [1998] 2 All SA 527 (A) (17 March 1998)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that supporting documents could be read together to satisfy Article 62(b)(ii) of the Fund Act, and dismissed the appeal.
Swanepoel v City Council of Johannesburg, President Insurance Company Limited v Kruger (760/92,90/93) [1994] ZASCA 80; 1994 (3) SA 789 (AD); (27 May 1994)
The court held that amended MMF prescription periods apply to pre-effective-date claims not yet prescribed, and dismissed one appeal while upholding the other.
Explore more
