Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2015] ZAECPEHC 34

Ntoni v Road Accident Fund (2158/2007)

Ntoni v Road Accident Fund (2158/2007) [2015] ZAECPEHC 34 (5 May 2015)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
2158/2007
Judge
N G Beshe

The court held that prior to the Constitutional Court's decision in Engelbrecht, the plaintiff's claim was unenforceable due to non-compliance with Regulation 2(1)(c) as interpreted in Thugwana. Prescription could not run on a claim that was not enforceable. The Engelbrecht judgment revived the plaintiff's claim by declaring the regulation inconsistent with the Constitution. The defendant failed to discharge the evidentiary burden of proving that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of an enforceable claim before Engelbrecht. The plaintiff's delay in serving summons was justifie…

Source excerpt

  • Prescription
  • Road Accident Fund Act
  • Constitutional Right Of Access To Court
  • Regulation 2 1 C Compliance
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2006] ZASCA 172

Road Accident Fund v Smith (334/05)

Road Accident Fund v Smith (334/05) [2006] ZASCA 172; 2007 (1) SA 172 (SCA) (28 September 2006)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
334/05
Judges
Harms, Brand, Cloete, Mlambo, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that compliance with regulation 2(1)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act is a precondition to the Fund's liability to compensate a claimant, but not to the existence of the claim itself. The Fund, as the beneficiary of the regulation, is competent to waive compliance, even though the provision is couched in peremptory terms. The Fund's conduct in this case—engaging with the merits, requesting further information, and indicating a willingness to concede the merits—was inconsistent with a challenge to enforceability based on non-compliance. The Fund only raised the…

Source excerpt

  • Road Accident Fund Act
  • Waiver Of Statutory Precondition
  • Hit And Run Claims
  • Regulation 2 1 C Compliance
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2005] ZAGPHC 96

Strauss v Road Accident Fund (1157/04)

Strauss v Road Accident Fund (1157/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 96; 2006 (1) SA 70 (T) (23 September 2005)

Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
1157/04
Judge
E M Patel

The court found that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to comply with Regulation 2(1)(c) by attempting to report the accident and submit the required affidavit to the police within the prescribed fourteen-day period. The evidence established that the police's refusal to accept the affidavit and their demand for additional documentation made it impossible for the plaintiff to comply strictly with the regulation. Applying the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held that impossibility caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control excuses non-compliance with statutory f…

Source excerpt

  • Road Accident Fund Act
  • Regulation 2 1 C Compliance
  • Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia
  • Special Plea
  • Affidavit Submission
  • Procedural Impossibility
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.