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
Boshoff v Road Accident Fund (A106/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 204 (5 March 2024)
Appeal in a Road Accident Fund damages case. The High Court held the trial court misdirected itself on career progression and increased the loss of earning capacity award.
Meintjies v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (21207/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 142 (12 June 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was a passenger on the defendant's train at the time of the incident. The evidence, including medical and ambulance records, as well as hearsay statements from bystanders and security personnel, indicated that the plaintiff was injured while illegally crossing the railway tracks, likely under the influence of heroin. The plaintiff's and his witness's testimonies were inconsistent, implausible, and contradicted by objective evidence. The court admitted the hearsay evidence in the interests of justice and h…
Source excerpt
Advocate Myburgh N.O. v Road Accident Fund (A99/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 523 (13 August 2021)
The High Court upheld an appeal on agreed loss-of-earnings calculations in a Road Accident Fund matter and substituted the award.
K v K (4843/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 82 (8 June 2017)
High Court granted leave to amend a divorce counterclaim to add forfeiture of patrimonial benefits, finding the amendment raised a triable issue and was not mala fide.
Nurcha Finance Company (Pty) Ltd v Mahlaku Mosebo Contractors CC and Another (A174/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 308 (29 November 2012)
The High Court held that the written loan agreement clearly limited the Paymaster's agency to the specific purpose of amending the Actual Costs Breakdown Schedule, and did not authorize the Paymaster to act as agent for the appellant in making payments. There was no evidence that the appellant had conferred broader authority on the Paymaster outside the agreement. The magistrate erred in finding otherwise. The court further held that the pre-trial agreement limiting the issues for trial was binding on the parties and should have been given effect, regardless of whether the conference was held…
Source excerpt
Ex parte: Schreuder (2837/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 118 (12 November 2009)
The court held that the defendant was not bound by the experts’ agreement and could call further expert witnesses.
Explore more
