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
Harrison v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (14012/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 747 (21 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a declaratory application challenging municipal property rates for 2008/2009, finding the applicant lacked a sufficient legal interest after selling the property.
Valhalla Fishing Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Bluefin Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (2025/069955) [2025] ZAWCHC 295 (16 July 2025)
Urgent application struck from the roll for lack of urgency and failure to comply with arbitration clauses; the respondent’s affidavit remained valid despite a commissioning defect.
E.L.T obo O.M.T and Others v Road Accident Fund (11403/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 118 (17 June 2025)
The court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were properly lodged within the prescribed period, based on documentary evidence and correspondence confirming lodgment by previous attorneys. The Defendant failed to raise prescription in its plea, and its attempt to amend the plea at trial was rejected due to lateness and lack of cogent reasons. The Fourth Plaintiff was validly added to the claim through unopposed amendment. The court held that substantial compliance with Section 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act was achieved, as the Defendant possessed sufficient medical and documentary records to…
Source excerpt
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others v Badenhorst N.O. and Others (1004/2023) [2025] ZASCA 68 (28 May 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review and set aside the environmental authorisations on grounds not raised in the internal appeal, as the respondents failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not apply for exemption under section 7(2)(c) of PAJA. The Court found that any procedural non-compliance in the granting of environmental authorisations was not material and did not prejudice any person, thus the authorisations remained valid under section 47A(1) of NEMA. The requirement for EMPrs is that they be submitted before deciding on authorisation,…
Source excerpt
Majozi v Road Accident Fund (D10075/2023; D10076/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 31 (5 February 2025)
The court dismissed two consolidated applications against the Road Accident Fund concerning lodgment of claims and held the proper challenge was a PAJA review.
Moeketsi v Road Accident Fund (959/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 411 (24 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed RAF special pleas, holding the claimant substantially complied with section 24 despite missing documents said to affect only quantum.
K.N.M obo P.E.M v Road Accident Fund (2023/034357) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1362 (4 December 2024)
The court found that the applicant's claim was validly lodged with the Road Accident Fund, as all required documents were submitted and there was at least substantial compliance with the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The Management Directive and Board Notices issued by the RAF were held to be unlawful, as they imposed requirements beyond those stipulated in the Act and Regulations and did not have the force of law. The court emphasized that the best interests of the minor child are paramount and must be considered in the adjudication of the claim. The order was granted by default due to…
Source excerpt
Sinthumule v Road Accident Fund (2021/7032) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1234 (28 November 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act by not submitting the required Accident Report and section 19(f) affidavit at the time of lodgement. The subsequent delivery of these documents occurred after the prescribed period, rendering the claim invalid and prescribed. The court further held that the contradictions between the plaintiff's oral evidence, affidavits, and hospital records were material and irreconcilable, undermining the credibility and reliability of his claim. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of pr…
Source excerpt
Masilo v Road Accident Fund (5599/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 372 (22 November 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff substantially complied with section 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act, so the RAF’s special pleas were dismissed.
Ranosi v Road Accident Fund (6056/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 310 (20 September 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff provided all material particulars required for the claim, including accident details, employment status, and medical records. The absence of certain documents, such as tax invoices and proof of payment, was justified by the fact that treatment occurred in a public hospital where such documents do not exist. The court held that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is sufficient, and that the defendant's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 is misplaced given its legal status and the pragmatic approach endorsed by precedent. The special plea…
Source excerpt
Explore more
