South Africa Case Law

S.S.N. obo N.M. and Another v Road Accident Fund (34316/2020)

S.S.N. obo N.M. and Another v Road Accident Fund (34316/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 615 (17 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34316/2020

Judge

M.J Matime

The court found that the respondent's notice of intention to defend, delivered more than three years after the expiry of the prescribed period, constituted an abuse of the court's process. The respondent failed to engage meaningfully with the proceedings, ignored correspondence, and only acted on the eve of default judgment to delay the matter. The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the late notice, enabling consideration of the applicants' claim for loss of support. The applicants substantiated their claim with expert and actuarial evidence, affidavits, and supportin…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Abuse Of Process
• Loss Of Support
• Road Accident Fund Litigation
• Negligence
• Rule 19 5

Sethonga and Another v Wehmeyers Attorneys (2022-042316)

Sethonga and Another v Wehmeyers Attorneys (2022-042316) [2024] ZAGPPHC 14 (12 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022-042316

Judge

Van den Bogert

The court found that the written fee agreements between the applicants and the respondent did not constitute contingency fee agreements as defined by the Contingency Fees Act. The agreements lacked the formalities required by the Act, and the objective evidence, including signed documents and explanations provided to the applicants, supported the respondent's version. Declaring the agreements to be contingency fee agreements would render them void due to illegality, which was not the relief sought by the applicants. The applicants did not challenge the reasonableness of the fees, and the agre…

Source excerpt

• Contingency Fee Agreements
• Attorney And Client Fees
• Declaratory Relief
• Costs Orders
• Road Accident Fund Litigation

L.N and Another v Road Accident Fund

L.N and Another v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 274; 43687/2020 (20 April 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43687/2020

Judge

N Davis

The High Court refused applications to compel further particulars and discovery in RAF litigation, finding the steps unnecessary and abusive.

• Abuse Of Process
• Road Accident Fund Litigation
• Costs Orders
• Discovery
• Further Particulars
• Case Management

Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Tiry (22915/2016)

Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Tiry (22915/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 512 (29 August 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22915/2016

Judges

C G Lamont, K Matojane

The court found that the respondent, over a period of several years, repeatedly accepted multiple trial briefs and charged multiple trial fees for matters set down on the same day, particularly in Road Accident Fund litigation. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent was actively preparing and consulting on several matters simultaneously, contradicting her claim that briefs were taken sequentially only after prior matters were finalised. The respondent's conduct constituted double briefing and overreaching, both of which are expressly prohibited by the Uniform Rules of Professional Cond…

Source excerpt

• Professional Conduct Of Advocates
• Double Briefing
• Overreaching
• Road Accident Fund Litigation
• Disciplinary Sanctions

Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Tiry (22915/2016)

Johannesburg Society of Advocates v Tiry (22915/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 447 (29 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22915/2016

Judges

C G Lamont, K Matojane

The court found that the respondent had, on at least 106 occasions between 2008 and 2012, held multiple trial briefs and charged multiple trial fees on the same day in Road Accident Fund matters. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent was actively preparing and consulting on several matters simultaneously, contradicting her claim that briefs were taken sequentially. The respondent's conduct constituted double briefing and overreaching, in breach of the Bar's rules and the principles set out in the Geach judgment. The respondent's explanations did not excuse her conduct, and her actions…

Source excerpt

• Professional Conduct Of Advocates
• Double Briefing
• Overreaching
• Road Accident Fund Litigation
• Disciplinary Sanctions