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
Lehlehla v Minister of Police (A37/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 107 (19 April 2024)
Full bench appeal over a police shooting claim held that pleadings were broad enough to include failure to deploy the POP unit and reversed dismissal.
Moloi v Minister of Police (3178/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 478 (8 December 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that her injuries were caused by a rubber bullet discharged by the police. There was no corroborating evidence, either from witnesses or hospital records, that her injuries were caused by a rubber bullet. The defendant's evidence that only reduced rubber bullets were used, which could not have caused such injuries, was not contradicted. Furthermore, the plaintiff knowingly placed herself in a volatile protest environment, thereby voluntarily assuming the risk of injury. The facts did not…
Source excerpt
Lalmiah v Road Accident Fund (734/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 348 (1 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed a RAF claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove negligence and had voluntarily assumed the risk of overtaking an erratic vehicle.
Lehlehla v Minister of Police (13151/2014) [2022] ZAWCHC 235; [2023] 1 All SA 438 (WCC) (17 November 2022)
The court found that the SAPS members were justified in firing rubber bullets due to necessity. They were hopelessly outnumbered by a violent crowd, had no access to alternative crowd control methods such as teargas or water cannons, and were compelled to act to protect life and property. The firing was not random or directed at the crowd but into the ground as trained, and there was no evidence of excessive force or direct targeting. The plaintiff, by entering the area of protest despite clear signs of unrest and gunfire, voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. The pleaded case did not estab…
Source excerpt
Zanoxolo v The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2018/40091) [2020] ZAGPJHC 420 (15 June 2020)
The court found the plaintiff and his witness to be credible and their evidence consistent and probable. The defendant failed to present any witnesses or a version of its own, relying solely on cross-examination and documentary contradictions, which the court found unpersuasive. The open doors of the overcrowded train, lack of security personnel, and the defendant's omission to adhere to safety protocols constituted negligence. The court held that there was both factual and legal causation between the defendant's omission and the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff did not voluntarily assume ri…
Source excerpt
Jackson v Road Accident Fund (40814/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 148; 2021 (4) SA 244 (GP) (1 April 2020)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable for a stunt rider’s injuries after a camera boom struck her during a film shoot.
Cromhout v O'neil N.O and Others (19155/2015) [2019] ZAWCHC 54 (14 May 2019)
The High Court granted absolution in a delict claim arising from a chimpanzee attack, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved wrongfulness or a prima facie case.
Van der Merwe v MEC Public Works, Roads and Transport and Another (4617/2010) [2019] ZAFSHC 6 (28 February 2019)
The court held the road authority negligent for failing to maintain a dangerous provincial road, awarding the plaintiff 100% of her proved damages.
City of Cape Town v Rhoode (A314/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 49 (17 April 2018)
The court held that the City of Cape Town owed a duty of care to users of the water slide at Mnandi Resort, given the inherent risks associated with head first descents into shallow water. The City was found negligent for failing to implement effective control mechanisms at the top of the slide to prevent head first descents, despite being aware of the danger and frequent infractions. The signage, while present, was insufficient to prevent unsafe conduct, and staff failed to intervene when the respondent assumed a kneeling position indicative of intent to descend head first. The court rejecte…
Source excerpt
Van Vuuren v eThekwini Municipality (1308/2016) [2017] ZASCA 124; 2018 (1) SA 189 (SCA) (27 September 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that eThekwini Municipality owed a duty to supervise or control access to a children's slide facility and was liable in delict.
Explore more
