South Africa Case Law

Mojalefe v Road Accident Fund (26191/2019)

Mojalefe v Road Accident Fund (26191/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 405 (24 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26191/2019

Judge

Wanless

The court held that, based on the parties' pre-trial admissions and the certification for trial, the defendant accepted that the plaintiff's injuries were serious and did not require referral to the HPCSA tribunal. The defendant failed to act on the serious injury report and did not formally withdraw its admission. The court distinguished the present facts from Knoetze, noting that in this case there was a clear acceptance and no rejection of the serious injury assessment. The court relied on Mertz, which established that admissions in pre-trial minutes bind the parties and may amount to acce…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• General Damages
• Jurisdiction
• Pre Trial Admissions

Nsibande v Road Accident Fund (A174/2020)

Nsibande v Road Accident Fund (A174/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 833 (3 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A174/2020

Judges

M P Motha, Tolmay, Phahlane

The High Court upheld an appeal against the quantum of RAF damages, holding the respondent was bound by pre-trial admissions and awarding R5,606,228.44.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Quantification Of Damages
• Judicial Admissions
• Loss Of Earnings
• General Damages
• Pre Trial Admissions

Yebe v Road Accident Fund (3833/16)

Yebe v Road Accident Fund (3833/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 535 (15 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3833/16

Judge

Mosopa

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's claim for general damages because the Road Accident Fund had rejected the serious injury assessment report, albeit not within the prescribed 90-day period. The Regulations do not provide that failure to reject within the period results in deemed acceptance. The Fund's decision is administrative action, and the plaintiff's remedy lies in review proceedings under PAJA or referral to the statutory tribunal. Admissions made at the pre-trial conference were conditional and did not unequivocally amount to acceptance of the inj…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• General Damages
• Administrative Action
• Pre Trial Admissions

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services CC (JS 1280/2009)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services CC (JS 1280/2009) [2013] ZALCJHB 301 (3 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 1280/2009

Judge

Snyman AJ

The Labour Court held that employees were dismissed for joining a protected strike, making the dismissals automatically unfair under section 187(1)(a) of the LRA.

• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Protected Strike
• Section 187 Lra
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Guilt
• Pre Trial Admissions

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services (JS 1280/09)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others v Collett Armed Security Services (JS 1280/09) [2013] ZALCJHB 239 (3 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 1280/09

Judge

Snyman

The court found that the respondent was bound by its pre-trial admission that the strike was protected and failed to establish any exceptional circumstances to resile from this agreement. The evidence demonstrated that the individual applicants were dismissed solely for participating in the protected strike, not for proven misconduct. The respondent’s attempt to rely on derivative misconduct failed as no individual applicant was identified as having committed or condoned misconduct, nor were they given an opportunity to respond. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under section 1…

Source excerpt

• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Protected Strike
• Compensation Quantum
• Collective Guilt
• Derivative Misconduct
• Pre Trial Admissions

G E Security (Africa) v Airey and Others (CA 02/2009)

G E Security (Africa) v Airey and Others (CA 02/2009) [2011] ZALAC 37 (28 April 2011)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA02/2009

Judges

Waglay, Mlambo, Davis

Labour Appeal Court held that retrenched employees were not entitled to be considered for posts they had not applied for under the agreed selection criteria.

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Selection Criteria
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Pre Trial Admissions
• Retrenchment-procedure