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
Smit v Road Accident Fund (A2024/064500) [2025] ZAGPJHC 626 (20 June 2025)
The appeal court replaced a round estimate with actuarial proof and awarded R6,337,477 for past and future loss of income.
Esmie v Road Accident Fund (2019/9007) [2025] ZAGPJHC 657 (9 June 2025)
The High Court granted judgment for a passenger injured in a taxi collision, finding the Road Accident Fund 100% liable for damages to be proved.
Uys and Another v Road Accident Fund (333/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 704 (6 June 2025)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of damages after finding the deceased’s suicide was causally linked to accident-related injuries and depression.
Mashabela v Road Accident Fund (2020/29957) [2025] ZAGPJHC 202; [2025] 2 All SA 530 (GJ) (27 February 2025)
The court found that the Road Accident Fund failed to defend the matter for nearly four years and provided no cogent explanation for its delay or for its failure to investigate or settle the claim at an early stage. The defendant's late delivery of the notice of intention to defend did not automatically entitle it to a postponement, and the practice of relying on Uniform Rule 19(5) to force postponements was an abuse of court process. However, the court held that the defendant's conduct, while inefficient and burdensome to judicial resources, did not rise to the level of mala fides or vexatio…
Source excerpt
De Koker v Road Accident Fund (6409/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 59 (14 February 2025)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable after a rear-end collision involving the plaintiff’s motorcycle, finding no contributory negligence.
L.B.T obo Minors v Road Accident Fund (5896/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 17 (22 January 2025)
The High Court held that the deceased was a passenger in the insured vehicle, not the driver, and confirmed the Road Accident Fund’s liability.
Machekera v Road Accident Fund (2024/023488) [2025] ZAGPPHC 418 (1 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application and ordered attorney-and-own-client costs, holding that its statutory undertaking remained binding.
Luus v Road Accident Fund (Application for Leave to Appeal) (23724/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1018 (9 October 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any compelling reason for leave to be granted. The grounds of appeal and submissions did not establish that another court would reach a different conclusion on the facts or law. The court emphasized that granting leave to appeal without clear error or misdirection would be counterproductive and unnecessarily burden the judicial system. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
T.P.M v Road Accident Fund (Majority Judgment) (A150/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 312 (26 September 2024)
High Court appeal on RAF liability for a child injured after falling from a bakkie was upheld; the driver was held negligent and liable for 100% of damages.
Mahloko v Road Accident Fund (11951/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 106 (10 September 2024)
Default judgment against the Road Accident Fund for a motor vehicle collision, with liability admitted by default and loss of earnings awarded; general damages postponed.
Explore more
