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
Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd v Hunter (12954/23) [2025] ZAWCHC 17 (20 January 2025)
The High Court refused summary judgment after finding the respondent raised a bona fide defence based on disputed signature and alleged misrepresentation.
Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (26159/14) [2018] ZAGPPHC 312 (25 April 2018)
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with section 19(f) of the Road Accident Fund Act because no valid accident affidavit was submitted.
Hattingh v Road Accident Fund (17406/2007) [2015] ZAGPPHC 659 (2 September 2015)
The court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff likely was driving, not a passenger, and failed to prove RAF liability on the merits.
Fedorik v De Klerk, Vermaak & Partners Incorporated (19359/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 149 (8 August 2014)
The court held that an uninjured ex-husband could not recover medical expenses paid for his former wife from the RAF because he had no legal duty of support.
Radovan v De Klerk Vermaak And Partners Incorporated (19359/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 188 (8 August 2014)
The court held that an ex-husband with no legal duty of support could not claim gratuitous medical expenses from the RAF, so the attorneys were not negligent.
Benade v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development and Another (2438/2007) [2014] ZANWHC 45 (17 April 2014)
The court upheld a COIDA special plea and dismissed a magistrate’s damages claim after finding her injuries fell under the Act’s compensation regime.
Road Accident Fund v Abdool- Carrim and Others (293/07) [2008] ZASCA 18; [2008] 3 All SA 98 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 579 (SCA) (27 March 2008)
The SCA held that section 19(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act does not apply to supplier agreements under section 17(5). The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Prokureursorde van die Noordelike Provinsies v Malan en 'n Ander (24335/2002) [2007] ZAGPHC 55 (17 May 2007)
The court found that the respondents were guilty of serious misconduct, including improper recruitment of third party claims, appointment and lack of supervision of an unqualified staff member who perpetrated fraud, and breaches of trust account rules. Although the respondents denied personal dishonesty, the evidence showed systemic failures, lack of oversight, and practices that exposed clients and the Road Accident Fund to risk. The respondents' explanations for procedural irregularities were insufficient, and their attempts to justify their conduct by reference to industry norms were rejec…
Source excerpt
Mashao v Road Accident Fund (16867/2004) [2006] ZAGPHC 179 (2 May 2006)
The court found that persons pushing a Ford into traffic were deemed to be in control of it and were negligent, making the Road Accident Fund liable for this stage.
Tsotetsi v Mutual and Federal Insurance (6654/94) [1995] ZAGPHC 2 (13 February 1995)
The court allowed an amendment raising a constitutional challenge to motor vehicle compensation provisions and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, with wasted costs against the plaintiff.
Explore more
