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
Madlala v Road Accident Fund (RAF) (65311/17) [2025] ZAGPPHC 153 (14 February 2025)
The High Court granted absolution from the instance in an unidentified-vehicle RAF claim, finding the plaintiff’s uncorroborated evidence insufficient to prove negligence.
Masila v Road Accident Fund (7718/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 203 (11 December 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required for a claim under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The plaintiff's evidence was uncorroborated, and neither the accident report nor the police statement supported her version that an unidentified insured motor vehicle caused the accident. The court held that the proximate cause of the accident was the donkey crossing the road, not the alleged bright lights of another vehicle. Furthermore, the claim was lodged outside the prescribed period for unidentified vehicle claims, and no explanation was pro…
Source excerpt
Nolusu v Road Accident Fund (41398/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1471 (12 December 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff’s versions inconsistent and insufficiently credible in an unidentified vehicle matter.
Selemela v Road Accident Fund (89870/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 339 (31 July 2019)
The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff’s evidence on an alleged unidentified truck accident was inconsistent and not credible.
Xaba v Road Accident Fund (A844/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 320 (13 May 2016)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against prescription, holding that the claimant failed to prove legal disability before prescription expired.
Gilpin v Road Accident Fund (26140/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 259 (17 October 2014)
The High Court allowed a late amendment in a Road Accident Fund trial, held the issue was canvassed in evidence, and found the plaintiff proved liability.
C.A.S obo B.H and Another v Road Accident Fund (22533/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 406 (4 June 2014)
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not invalidated by the incomplete particulars in the claim forms, as the supporting documents submitted with the forms provided sufficient information to identify the claims as falling under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Fund received both the claim forms and supporting documentation within the prescribed two-year period, and the presence of contradictory or incomplete information in the forms did not preclude substantial compliance. The Fund was obliged to investigate the claims based on all information provided and could…
Source excerpt
Pithey v Road Accident Fund (319/13) [2014] ZASCA 55; 2014 (4) SA 112 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 324 (SCA) (16 April 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that contradictory claim-form details did not invalidate a Road Accident Fund claim where the accompanying documents made the claim’s nature clear.
Pithey v Road Accident Fund (A375/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 158; 2013 (5) SA 226 (GNP) (10 August 2012)
The court held that the appellant's claim form unambiguously identified the truck as the vehicle responsible for the accident, thereby constituting a claim under section 17(1)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, not section 17(1)(b) for unidentified vehicles. The statutory requirements for lodging a claim are peremptory, and the distinction between identified and unidentified vehicle claims is fundamental. The affidavits submitted could not cure the defect in the claim form, especially as they contained contradictory statements regarding the cause of the accident. The respondent was entitled to…
Source excerpt
Malinga v Road Accident Fund (12896/2001) [2011] ZAGPPHC 224; 2012 (5) SA 120 (GNP) (6 October 2011)
The court held that the plaintiff's original claim was based on an identified driver or owner under section 17(1)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The amended particulars of claim introduced a new cause of action based on an unidentified motor vehicle, which is subject to the prescription requirements of section 17(1)(b) and regulation 2(1)(c). The amended claim was only served on the defendant more than five years after the cause of action arose, and therefore, in terms of the regulations, the claim had prescribed. The amendment was tantamount to issuing new summons, and the plaintiff faile…
Source excerpt
Explore more
