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
Horn v S (A201/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 202 (26 May 2020)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a negligent driving conviction, finding the appellant’s version reasonably possibly true and the State’s case unproven.
Fenn v Mellet (A303/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1172 (11 November 2016)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a motor vehicle collision, holding that the appellant was solely negligent for entering the intersection without proper lookout.
MEC For Transport For KwaZulu-Natal v loxton (AR 262/2011) [2014] ZAKZPHC 40 (27 June 2014)
Appeal over road-closure liability dismissed the trial court’s 30% apportionment and held the plaintiff failed to prove actionable negligence by the road authority.
S v Wiese (61/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 80 (23 May 2013)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside a negligent driving conviction and sentence after finding no factual basis for negligence on the record.
Van As v Road Accident Fund (346/10) [2011] ZASCA 124; 2012 (1) SA 387 (SCA) (7 September 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insured driver was not negligent in failing to avoid a sudden collision, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Van Almenkerk vs Standmar Motors (Pty) Ltd (7244/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 472 (13 September 2010)
The court granted leave to appeal, finding a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different conclusion on the law and its application to the facts.
Steyn v S (105/09) [2009] ZASCA 152; 2010 (1) SACR 411 (SCA) (27 November 2009)
The SCA held that the appellant acted in private defence when she shot her abusive former husband as he advanced on her with a knife, so her conviction was set aside.
Kruger v Road Accident Fund (32651/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 375 (26 November 2009)
The High Court held that a plaintiff who climbed onto the bonnet of a stolen car acted without negligence; the insured driver’s reckless driving caused the injuries.
Sturm v S (AR 439/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 65 (26 November 2009)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for negligent driving, holding that the appellant failed to make reasonable allowance for foreseeable speeding traffic.
S v Moteka (19/88) [1988] ZASCA 19 (22 March 1988)
The appellate court found that the trial court failed to properly account for the urgent and dangerous circumstances in which the appellant acted. The deceased had rushed at the appellant over a short distance with a raised knife, and the appellant reasonably feared for his life. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted unreasonably or exceeded the bounds of self-defence. The appellant's subsequent false statement to the police was explained by credible fear of reprisals from local criminals, not by consciousness of guilt. The court held that the State h…
Source excerpt
Explore more
