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
Mgwena v Road Accident Fund (Reasons) (81594/2014) [2025] ZAGPPHC 388 (29 April 2025)
The court awarded R350,000 for general damages after finding the plaintiff’s scarring was largely inconspicuous and not serious permanent disfigurement.
Aaron v Road Accident Fund (1168/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 6 (9 January 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent paraplegia, chronic pain, significant physical impairment, and severe emotional and psychological sequelae. The Road Accident Fund accepted the plaintiff's injuries as qualifying for general damages under the narrative test. After considering the expert evidence, the authorities cited by both parties, and the severity of the plaintiff's condition, the court determined that an award of R2 300 000 for general damages, less 20% apportionment for merits, is fair and reasonable. The court discounted authorities rel…
Source excerpt
Buthelezi v Road Accident Fund (6866/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 590 (25 June 2024)
The court found RAF liability for the accident and awarded loss of earnings, but upheld the special plea and refused general damages.
M v Road Accident Fund (514/2019) [2024] ZANCHC 21 (8 March 2024)
The High Court awarded R1.2 million in general damages to a minor injured in a road accident, holding it was not limited to the Appeal Tribunal record.
E.L obo R-L.R v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (83708/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 718 (23 August 2023)
The court found that the Appeal Tribunal failed to consider all relevant expert evidence, including the severe injury assessment forms and recommendations for further expert evaluation. The Tribunal did not provide adequate or intelligible reasons for its decision, nor did it properly apply the narrative test as required by the Road Accident Fund Regulations. The administrative action was procedurally unfair and irrational, and failed to consider the best interests of the child. The decisions of both the Road Accident Fund and the Appeal Tribunal were reviewed and set aside. The matter was re…
Source excerpt
Buso v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (90979/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 451 (20 June 2022)
Review of a RAF Appeal Tribunal decision dismissed after the court found the tribunal had properly considered the evidence and acted rationally.
Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others v Maraz and Others (A179/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 876 (9 September 2021)
The appeal succeeded because the Tribunal was not obliged to provide reasons for its decisions in the absence of a formal request under PAJA. The Tribunal's reasoning was sufficiently set out in its answering affidavits, and there was no procedural unfairness in its conduct. The Tribunal properly considered the expert reports and applied the prescribed assessment methods, including the narrative test. The court a quo erred in setting aside the Tribunal's decisions solely due to the absence of recorded reasons in the Rule 53 record. The Tribunal's decisions were rational and reasonable, and th…
Source excerpt
Rabalao v Road Accident Fund (83107/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 417 (7 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed further claims for loss of income, earning capacity, and general damages in a Road Accident Fund matter, but ordered an undertaking for future psychological treatment.
Sebokolodi v Health Professionals Council of South Africa and Others (1629/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 32 (19 February 2021)
The court found that the Road Accident Fund Appeals Tribunal's decision was unreasonable as it relied solely on the report of Dr Moloto, whose expertise did not cover the applicant's injuries. The expert evidence from Drs Kahn, Pienaar, and Stevens established that the applicant suffered permanent serious disfigurement and psychological harm, qualifying him under the narrative test for serious injury. The delay in filing the application was condoned due to the short period of lateness and the impact of the national lockdown. The matter was referred back to a differently constituted tribunal f…
Source excerpt
Chairikira v Road Accident Fund Tribunal and Others (72371/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 73 (8 February 2021)
High Court review of a Road Accident Fund Tribunal decision turned on whether psychological injury evidence was ignored under the serious injury narrative test.
Explore more
