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
Masilo v Road Accident Fund (5599/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 372 (22 November 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff substantially complied with section 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act, so the RAF’s special pleas were dismissed.
Dibakoena v Road Accident Fund (3120/2020) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 79 (8 November 2024)
The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the negligence of an unidentified insured driver. His evidence was inconsistent and self-contradictory, with material differences between his affidavit, warning statement, particulars of claim, and oral testimony. The accident report did not support the existence of another vehicle. The plaintiff could not explain the cause of the accident or substantiate his claim that another driver was involved. The court found his version improbable and unreliable, and therefore rejected h…
Source excerpt
Aneliswe v Member of the Execution Council for Health Eastern Cape (4307/2018) [2024] ZAECMHC 25 (5 March 2024)
The court found that the proposed amendment to the particulars of claim failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 18(4) and 18(10) of the Uniform Rules. The amendment lacked sufficient particularity regarding the quantum of damages and the factual basis for the claim, making it excipiable and prejudicial to the respondent. The absence of an explanation for the lack of detail and the failure to incorporate expert reports into the pleadings further justified refusal. The court held that granting the amendment would result in pleadings that are unclear and would likely lead to further litig…
Source excerpt
Mbethe v Road Accident Fund (856/2020) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 5 (26 January 2023)
The court found that the affidavits submitted in support of the settlement agreements were inadequate, as they were based on templates with only variable details inserted and failed to provide substantive information required by section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Contingency Fees Act. The affidavits did not disclose the estimated amount or relief obtainable at trial, the prospects of success or failure, or a comparison of fees between settlement and trial. Without this information, the court could not properly exercise its oversight function or determine whether the settlements were in the plaintif…
Source excerpt
Sithebe v Road Accident Fund (33165/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 133 (11 March 2021)
The court found that although the plaintiff's name was omitted in paragraph 22 of the RAF 1 form, the defendant did not object to the validity of the claim within 60 days as required by section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The letter sent by the defendant was merely a request for completion and not a formal objection. The court held that substantial compliance was achieved because the plaintiff's name appeared elsewhere in the documentation, including the medical records, identity document, and other sections of the RAF 1 form. The defendant was able to ascertain the identity of the c…
Source excerpt
Billings v Road Accident Fund (12247/2001) [2018] ZAGPPHC 641 (28 February 2018)
The High Court varied a 2005 RAF order to remove the R25,000 cap, holding the claim had not been finally determined and could proceed under the amended Act.
Ngoma v Road Accident Fund (43140/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 692 (26 October 2017)
The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff had not strictly complied with statutory lodging requirements.
Mahaeeane and Another v Anglogold Ashanti Limited (85/2016) [2017] ZASCA 90; [2017] 3 All SA 458 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 382 (SCA) (7 June 2017)
The majority held that the appellants failed to meet the threshold under section 50(1) of PAIA, as the records requested were not reasonably required for the exercise or protection of their right to claim damages. The court found that the appellants already possessed sufficient information to formulate their claims and that the request was aimed at evaluating the prospects of success rather than exercising the right itself. Furthermore, the certification application constituted the commencement of civil proceedings, triggering section 7(1) of PAIA and making the discovery rules applicable. As…
Source excerpt
South African National Roads Agency Ltd v Moodley and Others (1509/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 132 (16 September 2010)
The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim did not comply with the prescriptive requirements of Rule 18(10) because they lacked sufficient detail for the defendants to reasonably assess the quantum of damages. The claims for future medical expenses, past loss of income, and future loss of income were presented as mere estimates without itemisation or explanation of how the amounts were calculated. The court found that it was reasonably practicable for the plaintiffs to provide particulars regarding their previous or current work and earnings, and that such information was within…
Source excerpt
Shabalala v Road Accident Fund (12777/04) [2006] ZAGPHC 84 (29 August 2006)
The court held that the plaintiff was not in a position to comply with regulation 2(1)(c) until it was established, on a balance of probabilities, that the identity of the owner or driver of the vehicle was unknown. The investigative process undertaken by the plaintiff and his attorney, including reasonable enquiries to the police, was sufficient to satisfy this requirement. The submission of the affidavit to the police on 28 September 2003 was found to be in compliance with the regulation, as the plaintiff could only reasonably be expected to act once he had exhausted all avenues to identify…
Source excerpt
Explore more
