South Africa Case Law

Minister of Safety and Security v A.K (3429/2013)

Minister of Safety and Security v A.K (3429/2013) [2024] ZAECQBHC 48; 2024 (2) SACR 507 (ECGq) (13 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

3429/2013

Judge

Govindjee

The court held that Uniform Rule 36(1) does not exclude the presence of a legal representative during psychological and psychiatric assessments. The decision in Goldberg v Union and SWA Insurance Co Ltd remains binding and correct, and its rationale applies equally to psychological and psychiatric evaluations. The constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and psychological integrity reinforce the entitlement to legal representation during such assessments. The expert evidence presented by the Minister did not outweigh the established legal entitlement. The court found that appropriate safeg…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 36
• Legal Representation At Medical Examination
• Bodily And Psychological Integrity
• Costs Orders
• Constitutional Rights

P E obo L E v Member of the Executive Council for Health of the Gauteng Province (37431/2013)

P E obo L E v Member of the Executive Council for Health of the Gauteng Province (37431/2013) [2020] ZAGPJHC 276 (9 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37431/2013

Judge

L R Adams

The court allowed the plaintiff to reopen her case to lead further radiology expert evidence and file the required expert notice and summary.

• Admission Of Further Evidence
• Expert Testimony
• Uniform Rule 36
• Reopening Of Case
• Admission-of-further-evidence
• Expert-testimony

Legoale and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804)

Legoale and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804) [2020] ZAGPJHC 366 (3 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804

Judge

Adams

The court dismissed five RAF interlocutory applications seeking to compel agreement on joint experts, holding Rule 36(9A) gave no such right.

• Uniform Rule 36
• Joint Experts
• Practice Directive
• Interlocutory Relief
• Civil-procedure
• Uniform-rule-36

Road Accident Fund v Chin (23037/2016)

Road Accident Fund v Chin (23037/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 153; 2018 (3) SA 547 (WCC) (9 November 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

23037/2016

Judge

H Slingers

The court ordered the respondent to attend a medical examination by the RAF’s nominated doctor, finding her objections to that examiner were not substantiated.

• Uniform Rule 36
• Medical Examination
• Objection To Expert
• Similar Fact Evidence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Uniform-rule-36