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
Mneno v RAF (4942/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 212 (11 July 2025)
The High Court awarded Faith Mneno R9.16 million for past and future loss of earnings after a severe road accident injury, while postponing general damages sine die.
SPM obo SM v Road Accident Fund (2226/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 185 (26 June 2025)
High Court awarded a child plaintiff R500,000 in general damages after a pedestrian collision, finding the injuries serious and their long-term cognitive and psychological effects significant.
Mangali v Road Accident Fund (RAF238/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 142 (4 June 2025)
Road Accident Fund matter awarding the plaintiff R2.747 million for general damages and loss of earnings, with 100% liability conceded and a future medical undertaking ordered.
Mmamothama v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (2024/023448) [2025] ZAGPPHC 685 (29 May 2025)
The court found that the Appeal Tribunal acted outside its powers by determining causation, which is a function reserved for the courts. The Tribunal failed to consider the WPI assessment, which was above the statutory threshold for serious injury, and instead focused solely on the narrative test. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant ones, rendering the decision reviewable under PAJA. The Supreme Court of Appeal has categorically held that the Tribunal cannot have the final say on causation. Accordingly, the Tribunal's decision to reject the…
Source excerpt
Parkies v Road Accident Fund (437/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 533 (19 May 2025)
The court found that the defendant's admissions at the pre-trial conference were limited to the correctness of expert reports as they accorded with hospital records and did not amount to an admission of the seriousness of the plaintiff's injuries as required by section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The defendant explicitly declined to admit the injuries and general damages at the pre-trial stage. Therefore, the plaintiff must obtain a serious injury assessment report from the HPCSA before the claim for general damages can proceed. The claim for general damages is postponed sine die pen…
Source excerpt
M.G.N v Road Accident Fund (31148/19) [2025] ZAGPPHC 445 (6 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a R8 million future loss of earnings claim by a plaintiff injured as a minor in a motor vehicle accident, but awarded merits and a section 17(4)(a) undertaking.
Dube v Road Accident Fund (21827/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 289 (18 March 2025)
The plaintiff's claim for general damages was postponed sine die because the Road Accident Fund had not taken a decision on the RAF4 form, and the court lacks jurisdiction to award general damages absent such a decision. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings, as expert evidence established that her injuries have compromised her earning capacity, particularly if her employment circumstances change. The court applied increased contingencies (15% past, 20% future) to the actuarial calculation, reflecting the speculative nature of future employment and the plaintiff's age…
Source excerpt
Canham v Road Accident Fund (2021/20063) [2025] ZAGPJHC 229 (7 March 2025)
The High Court awarded the plaintiff R3,519,598 for accrued and future loss of income after an RAF motor accident claim, applying contingencies for pre-existing vulnerabilities.
Kriel N.O obo Minor Child v Road Accident Fund (Leave to Appeal) (12291/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 82 (31 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a Road Accident Fund damages matter, finding no reasonable prospect of success under section 17.
Shabalala v Road Accident Fund (2021/29064; 2021/58021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 66 (24 January 2025)
The court held that the orders previously granted, which deemed injuries serious if the Road Accident Fund failed to decide within 10 days, were incorrect and conflicted with the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Mpahla v RAF. The RAF's failure to comply with statutory and court-ordered obligations does not result in a deemed acceptance of serious injury. Instead, the appropriate remedy is for the plaintiff to seek judicial review under PAJA, allowing the court to substitute its own decision for that of the RAF. The court exercised its power under PAJA to reject the serious injury assessm…
Source excerpt
Explore more
