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
Van Der Merwe v Bosch N.O and Others (39756/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 278 (19 March 2025)
The High Court granted defendants leave to amend a plea to raise an alleged settlement about a dead man’s will, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the amendment costs.
Cindi Family v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 115/2008; LCC 026/2007) [2025] ZALCC 8 (4 February 2025)
The Land Claims Court held that the Cindi Family had not clearly settled its land claim or waived restoration rights, and dismissed the landlords’ Rule 30(6) application.
T.S.S v Road Accident Fund (A99/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 386 (6 December 2024)
The full court found that the court a quo erred by refusing to adjudicate the claim for loss of income based on the parties' agreement regarding contingencies and expert evidence. The legal principles established by the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court require courts to give effect to settlement agreements unless there is evidence of impropriety. The appellant's poor academic record and limited employment prospects justified higher contingency deductions. Applying 20% to past loss and 40% to future loss of income was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, resulting in an aw…
Source excerpt
Theodosiou and Others v Schindlers Attorneys and Others (A5060/22) [2024] ZAGPJHC 833 (28 August 2024)
Appeal dismissed against an exception. The court held that a fee-settlement compromise was not a contingency fee agreement and that non-compliance with section 4 did not invalidate the settlement orders.
Mafisa v Road Accident Fund and Another (CCT 156/22) [2024] ZACC 4; 2024 (6) BCLR 805 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 426 (CC) (25 April 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally amending the settlement agreement between the applicant and the Road Accident Fund without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. The audi alteram partem principle was violated, and the High Court improperly relied on expert reports not properly before it as evidence. The court reaffirmed that a compromise extinguishes the original dispute and that courts may only refuse to make a settlement agreement an order of court if it is objectionable in law or public policy, or does not relate to the…
Source excerpt
Onghan Investments NO .15(Pty) Ltd v M.S. Banderker (A10/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 94 (27 March 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal and granted judgment under Rule 27(9) after finding that a breached undertaking, already made an order of court, entitled the applicant to relief.
Ruabenheimer obo Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (9380/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 149 (19 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel the Road Accident Fund to sign settlement submissions, holding that the relied-upon practice directive had been replaced.
Simelane v Road Accident Fund (A5039/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 494 (23 May 2023)
The High Court set aside a damages judgment after finding the trial was procedurally misdirected by reliance on unproven settlement terms.
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Wolmarans N.O and Others (3949/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 130 (17 April 2023)
Leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal in a dispute over National Credit Act issues, settlement agreements, and surety defences.
Road Accident Fund v MKM obo KM and Another; Road Accident Fund v NM obo CM and Another (1102/2021) [2023] ZASCA 50; [2023] 2 All SA 613 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 516 (SCA) (13 April 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund is not obliged by statute to ensure that legal practitioners obtain judicial approval under section 4 of the Contingency Fees Act before entering into settlement agreements. The Contingency Fees Act governs the relationship between attorney and client, not between the Road Accident Fund and claimants. Non-compliance with section 4 renders the contingency fees agreement unenforceable as between attorney and client, but does not invalidate the underlying settlement agreement with the Road Accident Fund. The High Court erred in conflat…
Source excerpt
Explore more
