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
Abrahams v City of Cape Town (25026/2011) [2025] ZAWCHC 173 (22 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed the City’s application for absolution after evidence that road water pooling and drainage failures may have caused a severe crash.
Botes v Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality (2011/32313) [2024] ZAGPJHC 788 (22 August 2024)
The High Court held the municipality negligent for failing to repair potholes or warn road users, but found the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent.
Naude v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan (2020/22584) [2024] ZAGPJHC 769 (22 July 2024)
The court found that the defendant municipality owed a legal duty to road users to ensure the safety of the road surface and to provide adequate warning of hazards. The evidence established that the trench was not properly reinstated, resulting in subsidence that was not visible at night. The absence of warning signs for both the curve and the uneven road surface constituted wrongful and negligent omissions by the defendant. The defendant failed to adhere to the SA Roadside Manual and did not investigate prior accidents at the same location. The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence…
Source excerpt
Swart v MEC Police, Roads, Transport for the province of the Free State (912/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 79 (11 March 2021)
The High Court granted condonation for late notice under the state-organs statute after a road-accident claim was wrongly lodged against the Road Accident Fund.
Agri Eastern Cape and Others v MEC for the Department of Transport and Safety Liaison and Others (3928/2015) [2020] ZAECGHC 26 (10 March 2020)
The court found that the respondents had not complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and that the applicants were entitled to have the agreement made an order of court under Rule 41(4). The respondents' objection based on separation of powers was rejected, as the court was not imposing any obligations beyond those agreed to by the parties. Judicial oversight was deemed appropriate and consistent with the agreement itself, which contemplated reporting to the court. The applicants established a need for a supervisory order to ensure compliance, but no case was made for a punitive co…
Source excerpt
MEC Department Police Roads & Transport, FS Province v Roberts and Another (A116-2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 23; 2020 (3) SA 478 (FB) (13 February 2020)
The appeal succeeded because the respondents failed to prove that vegetation control caused the kudu collision, and judicial notice of kudu behavior was impermissible.
Markus v MEC Department of Public Works & Roads (1688/13) [2017] ZANWHC 8 (10 February 2017)
High Court delict claim arising from a bicycle accident caused by a submerged pothole on a flooded road, with the defendant held liable for 100% of proven damages.
Windvogel v Mpumalanga Provincial Government and Others (22040/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 485 (10 July 2014)
The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Defendants were negligent or that their conduct caused the accident. The evidence regarding the presence and effect of loose aggregate on the road was inconsistent and insufficient to establish causation. Expert testimony for the Defendants indicated that the Plaintiff's vehicle would not have lost control due to aggregate alone at the alleged speed, and other possible causes, such as speed, animals, or unforeseen hazards, could not be excluded. The absence of a barrier or warning signs did not, on the facts,…
Source excerpt
Moqhaka Munisipaliteit v Claassens (A180/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 51 (28 March 2013)
The court found that the appellant municipality had a legal duty to maintain the road in a proper state of repair, as mandated by the Constitution. The municipality was aware of the dangerous condition of the road for an extended period and failed to take action, thereby creating a hazardous situation for road users. The respondent was not contributorily negligent, as she could not avoid the pothole due to its location and the presence of another pothole, and there were no warning signs. The magistrate correctly assessed the quantum of damages based on expert evidence and actual costs. The de…
Source excerpt
MEC for Transport for the Province of KwaZulu-Natal v Eastman and Others (680/09) [2011] ZASCA 38 (28 March 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that excessive speed by the driver, not road maintenance failures, solely caused the accident on a wet gravel road.
Explore more
