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
Jethro NO v Schreuder Attorneys (4389/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 40 (9 June 2005)
The court held that an attorney was negligent for not pursuing a claim where dust and gravel from an unidentified vehicle struck the claimant’s windscreen.
Padongelukfonds (voorheen Multilaterale Motorvoertuig-Ongelukkefonds) v Prinsloo (299/98) [1999] ZASCA 14; [1999] 2 All SA 431 (A) (23 March 1999)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a regulation requiring physical contact in unidentified-vehicle claims was ultra vires and invalid.
Malokoane v Multilater Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (466/96) [1998] ZASCA 72; 1999 (1) SA 544 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 486 (A) (21 September 1998)
The court held that lodging a motor accident claim with an unauthorised appointed agent did not interrupt prescription, so the claim had prescribed.
Cromhout v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, Santam Beperk v Williams (159/96, 445/96) [1997] ZASCA 77; [1997] 4 All SA 491 (A) (26 September 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1991 amendment to article 47 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund agreement did not operate retroactively. The amendment created a new right for pedestrian workmen to claim third party compensation without the previous statutory limitation, but this right only applied to accidents occurring after the effective date of the amendment. The Court found no express or implied intention in the language of the amendment to apply it to claims arising before 1 November 1991. Applying the general presumption against retroactivity, the Court concluded…
Source excerpt
Mokholwane v Pro Honda (200/95) [1997] ZASCA 52; 1997 (4) SA 223 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 447 (A); (27 May 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a leased motor cycle’s lessee counted as “owner” under the Act, so the defendant was not protected by the statutory bar.
Mbatha v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (29/96) [1997] ZASCA 25; 1997 (3) SA 713 (SCA); [1997] 2 All SA 483 (A); (26 March 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Regulation 3(2)(a)(i), which requires claims against the Fund in unidentified vehicle cases to be lodged within two years, is intra vires s 6 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989. The regulation gives effect to the Agreement and is not inconsistent with its provisions, even after subsequent amendments. The two-year time limit is reasonable and justified due to the increased risk of fraud and evidentiary difficulties in unidentified vehicle cases. The extended five-year prescription period under Article 57 of the Agreement applie…
Source excerpt
Tsotetsi v Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Ltd (CCT16/95) [1996] ZACC 19; 1996 (11) BCLR 1439; 1997 (1) SA 585 (12 September 1996)
The Constitutional Court held that the referral from the Transvaal Provincial Division was not competent because the issue referred could not be decisive of the case before that court. The accident and the applicant's claim arose before the Constitution came into force, and the respondent's liability was fixed at the time of the accident. The Constitution does not apply retrospectively to rights vested before its commencement, and no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a departure from this principle. The applicant's arguments regarding the nature of the respondent and the alleged gros…
Source excerpt
Santam Insurance Company Ltd. v Williams (627/90) [1992] ZASCA 1; 1992 (2) SA 273 (AD); (16 January 1992)
Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 must be interpreted to allow for the suspension of prescription for a further period of 90 days upon delivery of a second or subsequent proper offer of settlement. The statutory language does not preclude multiple suspensions, and a liberal construction is justified to protect claimants and facilitate settlement. The second offer made by the appellant suspended prescription for an additional 90 days, and the respondent's claim had not prescribed when summons was served.
Source excerpt
General Accident Insurance Company South Africa Ltd. v Xhego and Others (315/90) [1991] ZASCA 189; 1992 (1) SA 580 (AD); [1992] 1 All SA 414 (A) (29 November 1991)
The court held that injuries from a petrol-bomb attack on a bus arose out of its driving, and that the bus owner and driver were negligent.
Coetzee v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. (350/82) [1984] ZASCA 125 (5 November 1984)
The court held that the accidental loss of the file, together with the attorney’s and secretary’s absence, constituted special circumstances excusing late service.
Explore more
