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 Sensie v Road Accident Fund (2533/2019) [2025] ZAECQBHC 17 (13 May 2025)
The court upheld a claim for past medical and hospital expenses arising from a motor vehicle collision, including amounts paid by Discovery Health and by the plaintiff.
Piet v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (3090/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 51 (27 August 2024)
The court dismissed a challenge to SARS recovering tax debt from a retirement benefit under section 179 of the Tax Administration Act and granted condonation for a late affidavit.
Road Accident Fund v Abrahams (276/2017) [2018] ZASCA 49; 2018 (5) SA 169 (SCA) (29 March 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a driver in a single-vehicle accident may claim under section 17 of the RAF Act where the owner’s negligence caused the injury.
Mehrez and Another v Ndwandwe (65685/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 405 (23 March 2017)
The court found that the plaintiffs are not party to the insurance agreement between the defendant and his insurer and therefore have no obligation to join the insurer as a party to the proceedings. The obligation to join the insurer, if any, rests solely with the defendant. The court relied on authoritative insurance law commentary and case law, which establish that subrogation and contractual obligations between insurer and insured do not extend to third parties such as the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's special plea was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Olympus Country Estate & Home Owners Association v Ercon Electrical & Earthling Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another (A839/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 790 (24 February 2017)
The High Court held Olympus was liable under an oral agreement to pay Ercon for electrical repairs, granted condonation for filing delays, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Abrahams v Road Accident Fund (15863/2013) [2016] ZAWCHC 99; 2016 (6) SA 545 (WCC) (12 August 2016)
The court found that the plaintiff, although not an employee of the insured owner, drove the vehicle with the owner's consent and was acting as a sub-contractor. The Act's purpose is to provide the widest possible protection to victims of motor vehicle accidents caused by negligence. The plaintiff established a legitimate legal nexus with the insured owner, and the basic delictual requirements of liability—unlawfulness and fault—remain applicable. The defendant's argument that only employees may claim in single vehicle collisions is not supported by the Act or case law. The plaintiff is entit…
Source excerpt
Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund (1661/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 120; 2006 (3) SA 88 (T) (22 November 2005)
The High Court held that a supplier’s claim under section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act is not independent and had prescribed.
Cromhout v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, Santam Beperk v Williams (159/96, 445/96) [1997] ZASCA 77; [1997] 4 All SA 491 (A) (26 September 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1991 amendment to article 47 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund agreement did not operate retroactively. The amendment created a new right for pedestrian workmen to claim third party compensation without the previous statutory limitation, but this right only applied to accidents occurring after the effective date of the amendment. The Court found no express or implied intention in the language of the amendment to apply it to claims arising before 1 November 1991. Applying the general presumption against retroactivity, the Court concluded…
Source excerpt
President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Lategan (152/85) [1986] ZASCA 51 (19 May 1986)
The court held that the insurer failed to prove the respondent had not reported the accident or supplied required details under section 20(1). Appeal dismissed.
Wolmarans v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. (268/82) [1984] ZASCA 24; [1985] 1 All SA 311 (A) (23 March 1984)
The Appellate Division dismissed a pedestrian’s appeal after finding he failed to prove the bus driver was negligent or could have avoided the collision.
Explore more
