Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [1998] ZASCA 85

Santam Ltd. v Sayed (470/96)

Santam Ltd. v Sayed (470/96) [1998] ZASCA 85; [1998] 4 All SA 564 (A) (28 September 1998)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
470/96
Judges
Van Heerden, Howie, Plewman, Farlam, Ngoepe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'without prejudice' offers made by the appellant did constitute offers of settlement under section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, thereby suspending prescription for 90 days. However, the statutory prescriptive period expired at the end of February 1993, and subsequent extensions granted by the appellant were contractual, not statutory, and did not incorporate a further 90-day suspension upon the making of a second offer. The respondent failed to establish a tacit term that a 90-day suspension would apply to the contractual extension period,…

Source excerpt

  • Prescription
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents Act
  • Special Plea
  • Settlement Offer
  • Estoppel
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [1996] ZASCA 121

Malindi v Commercial Union Insurance Company Ltd. (103/95)

Malindi v Commercial Union Insurance Company Ltd. (103/95) [1996] ZASCA 121; 1997 (1) SA 327 (SCA); [1997] 1 All SA 255 (A); (27 September 1996)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
103/95
Judges
E M Grosskopf, F H Grosskopf, Marais, Olivier, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act does not require an offer of settlement to remain open for acceptance for 90 days. The plain language of the statute provides that prescription resumes 90 days after the delivery of a notice conveying an offer of settlement, regardless of the period for which the offer is open. The Court rejected the reasoning in Ngantweni and Lucas, finding no basis in the Act for reading in a 90-day requirement. The respondent's offer, open for 60 days, was bona fide and, if accepted, would have disposed of the claim.…

Source excerpt

  • Prescription Of Claims
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents Act
  • Offer Of Settlement
  • Statutory Interpretation
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [1996] ZASCA 120

Chauke v Santam Ltd. (710/1994)

Chauke v Santam Ltd. (710/1994) [1996] ZASCA 120; 1997 (1) SA 178 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 59 (A); (27 September 1996)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
710/1994
Judges
E M Grosskopf, M Kumleben, P M Nienaber, Olivier, R Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Clark model forklift in question was not designed or adapted for general propulsion on a road. Its features, including low speed, lack of lights and indicators, limited driver visibility, and exclusive use for lifting and conveying heavy loads within a warehouse or yard, rendered it unsuitable and hazardous for ordinary road use. The evidence showed that the forklift was not registered for road use, was not permitted to leave the premises, and required a trailer for transport between locations. Applying an objective, common sense interpretation of the…

Source excerpt

  • Motor Vehicle Accidents Act
  • Definition Of Motor Vehicle
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Special Plea
  • Third Party Insurance
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [1995] ZASCA 80

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Radebe (621/93)

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Radebe (621/93) [1995] ZASCA 80; 1996 (2) SA 145 (SCA); (24 August 1995)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
621/93
Judges
Joubert, Nestadt, Vivier, Steyn, Olivier

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to comply with regulation 9(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act by not submitting a copy of the inquest report with her MV3 claim form. The Court rejected the argument that providing sufficient information for the Fund to obtain the report constituted substantial compliance, emphasizing that the obligation to furnish the prescribed supporting documents rests with the claimant. The Court further held that the Minister's consent to sue the Fund did not excuse non-compliance with the regulation, as it merely established the rig…

Source excerpt

  • Motor Vehicle Accidents Act
  • Statutory Claim Compliance
  • Substantial Compliance
  • Waiver Of Rights
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.