South Africa Case Law

Brown N.O and Another v MEC responsible for Transport Community Safety and Liason KwaZulu-Natal (2383/23P)

Brown N.O and Another v MEC responsible for Transport Community Safety and Liason KwaZulu-Natal (2383/23P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 144 (27 November 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2383/23P

Judge

Mlotshwa AJ

The High Court held that pre-liquidation vehicle licence debts formed part of the concursus creditorum and had to be proved in liquidation, not demanded upfront.

• Liquidation Procedure
• Concursus Creditorum
• Preferent Creditor Status
• Road Traffic Regulations
• Proof Of Claims
• Liquidation-procedure

Cemisha Transport CC v Ni-da Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another (350/10)

Cemisha Transport CC v Ni-da Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another (350/10) [2016] ZAKZPHC 120 (27 September 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

350/10

Judge

Poyo Dlwati

Road-collision trial on negligence: the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, upheld the first defendant’s counterclaim, and found the plaintiff’s driver likely negligent.

• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Expert Evidence
• Road Traffic Regulations
• Motor-vehicle-collision

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Limited v Pro-Haul Transport Africa CC and Another (44350/2012)

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Limited v Pro-Haul Transport Africa CC and Another (44350/2012) [2016] ZAGPJHC 134 (3 June 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44350/2012

Judge

Van der Linde

High Court delict case from a highway collision. The court found the first defendant and the bus driver causally negligent, but dismissed the claim against the tanker owner.

• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Following Distance
• Causation
• Road Traffic Regulations

B and B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk v Find A Load (2335/2016)

B and B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk v Find A Load (2335/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 91 (12 May 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2335/2016

Judge

Nicholson AJ

Both drivers were found to have been negligent in causing the collision. The plaintiff's driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not take reasonable steps to avoid the accident, such as alerting the truck driver or reacting to the truck's movement. The defendant's driver failed to ensure it was safe to turn left across the plaintiff's path, did not make use of his assistant's vantage point to check for obstructions, and moved into the plaintiff's lane without confirming it was clear. The court assessed the degree of negligence independently and found the plaintiff's driver 20% negligen…

Source excerpt

• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Proper Lookout
• Road Traffic Regulations

Bester v Sivakumar (15542/2013)

Bester v Sivakumar (15542/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 597 (23 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15542/2013

Judge

S A Thobane

The High Court apportioned liability 80/20 in a motor collision case, finding both drivers negligent but the defendant more at fault.

• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Proper Lookout
• Road Traffic Regulations
• Motor-vehicle-collision

Avbob Funeral Services Limited v Honourable Minister of Safety & Security (in his Nominal Capacity as Head of the South African Police Services) (1273/06)

Avbob Funeral Services Limited v Honourable Minister of Safety & Security (in his Nominal Capacity as Head of the South African Police Services) (1273/06) [2006] ZAECHC 118 (1 September 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

1273/06

Judge

D Chetty

The High Court held that modified minibuses used as hearses did not need a special roadworthiness certificate, and granted an interdict against the second respondent.

• Road Traffic Regulations
• Interdict
• Certificate Of Roadworthiness
• Vehicle Modification
• Road-traffic-regulations
• Certificate-of-roadworthiness

S v Cronjé (571/03)

S v Cronjé (571/03) [2004] ZASCA 73; 2005 (1) SACR 31 (SCA) (10 September 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

571/03

Judges

Nugent JA, Erasmus AJA, Ponnan AJA

The court held that regulation 232 does not determine actual vehicle mass or axle load; those are factual questions. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

• Road Traffic Regulations
• Mens Rea
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road-traffic-regulations
• Mens-rea
• Statutory-interpretation

Mutual and Federal Insurance Company v Day (278/99)

Mutual and Federal Insurance Company v Day (278/99) [2001] ZASCA 38; [2001] 4 All SA 6 (A); 2001 (3) SA 775 (SCA) (26 March 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

278/99

Judges

Marais, Navsa, Mpati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Komatsu forklift, despite possessing features such as headlights, indicators, and brake lights, was not designed for general use on public roads. The Court found that its primary purpose was to lift and move loads in industrial environments, and its design characteristics—particularly rear wheel steering and a heavy counterweight—rendered it hazardous for road use. Expert evidence established that steering the forklift on public roads posed significant risks, and the vehicle's operating manuals did not contemplate road use. The Court concluded that co…

Source excerpt

• Motor Vehicle Definition
• Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund
• Statutory Interpretation
• Negligence
• Road Traffic Regulations