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
Rautini v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (19132/2014) [2024] ZAWCHC 6 (22 January 2024)
The court held that a jointly signed pre-trial minute bound the parties and made the draft order an order of court, despite the defendant’s lack of settlement mandate.
Boerdery v Matsepe N.O and Another (A79/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 49 (19 April 2022)
Full court appeal on Rule 30A and Rule 37 was upheld: the rescission order was granted, the striking out of the defence was set aside, and costs went against the respondents.
Road Accident Fund v Z and Others (16319/2013) [2018] ZAGPJHC 26 (22 February 2018)
The court found that the applicant, through its attorney, made a deliberate concession on the merits at the Rule 37 pre-trial conference, which was accepted by the respondents and confirmed before the judge at the judicial pre-trial. This concession constituted a binding compromise agreement, not merely an admission, and the applicant is precluded from withdrawing from it without the respondents' consent. The applicant's attorney had the necessary authority to make the concession, and there was no evidence of error or lack of mandate. The respondents would suffer prejudice if the concession w…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Khoza (65231/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 613 (28 August 2015)
The Court held that the Road Accident Fund failed to establish any special circumstances that would justify the withdrawal of the deemed admission made at the pre-trial conference. The agreement regarding the seriousness of the respondent's injuries and entitlement to non-patrimonial damages was reached deliberately and recorded in the pre-trial minutes. The applicant had sufficient time and opportunity to challenge the RAF-4 assessment but failed to do so within the agreed period. The affidavit submitted by the applicant did not provide any credible or acceptable explanation for the withdraw…
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Krawa (CA279/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 61; 2012 (2) SA 346 (ECG) (20 October 2011)
The court distinguished between merits and quantum in a RAF claim, allowing amendment on the deceased’s duty of support but not on locus standi.
Kriel v Bowels (1951/2008) [2010] ZAECPEHC 67; 2012 (2) SA 45 (ECP) (11 November 2010)
The court held that Rule 37(4) does not contemplate formal requests and replies, but rather a list of matters for discussion at the pre-trial conference. The remedy for a party frustrated by lack of cooperation is to request a conference before a judge in chambers, not to seek a court order compelling replies. The defendant did not agree to provide further meaningful replies, and the plaintiff's application was misconceived. The court found no basis for a punitive costs order, as the plaintiff acted on a bona fide belief in the defendant's commitment to provide further replies.
Source excerpt
MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment & Tourism: Eastern Cape v Kruizenga and Another (169/09) [2010] ZASCA 58; 2010 (4) SA 122 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 23 (SCA) (1 April 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that by appointing the State Attorney to defend the claim and participate in pre-trial conferences, the appellant represented to the respondents and the outside world that his legal representatives had the usual and customary powers associated with such appointments, including the authority to make admissions, concessions, and settlements at rule 37 conferences. The respondents reasonably relied on this representation and were entitled to assume the State Attorney had the necessary authority. The appellant's failure to inform the respondents of any limitation…
Source excerpt
Explore more
