Representative Matters

Landmark litigation in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and Constitutional Court

Media Coverage

Tammy Taylor Nails — eNCA Coverage

eNCA reported on the Viljoen couple's Tammy Taylor Nails franchise dispute and the R2.8-million settlement paid to Tamara Mduzulwana ahead of a scheduled auction of movable property.

Read the full eNCA article
Reported Matter

Viljoen and Another v Sheriff Pretoria South East and Others (Tammy Taylor Nails)

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria | 004922/2024 | [2025] ZAGPPHC 49 (21 January 2025)

Summary: Peet and Melany Viljoen, owners of the Tammy Taylor SA brand, sought an urgent stay of execution to prevent a sale in execution of attached movable property pending their rescission application against a judgment obtained by Mduzulwana Attorneys Inc for Tamara Mduzulwana. The underlying judgment concerned a Tammy Taylor Nails franchise sold under alleged false pretences, declared void under the Consumer Protection Act, with the Viljoens held jointly liable for R2,145,000.00. The matter attracted national media attention, including an eNCA report on the couple's beauty parlour dispute.

Outcome: Application dismissed with costs on Scale B — urgency self-created, lis pendens, non-joinder fatal, no Rule 45A stay.

Reported Matter

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff: East London and Others

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Circuit | 837/2024 | [2025] ZAECELLC 8; [2025] 4 All SA 212 (ECEL) (24 April 2025)

Summary: After Mduzulwana Attorneys Inc obtained a default judgment of R2,135,218.00 for clients in case 43630/2019, the Sheriff attached RAF movable property in East London. The RAF applied to set aside the attachment.

Outcome: RAF application dismissed with costs. Rule 45(5) requires a third-party surety of sufficient means.

Reported Matter

P.M obo O.M v Eskom Holdings Limited

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria | 29591/21 | [2023] ZAGPPHC 1127 (31 August 2023)

Summary: A minor child was catastrophically electrocuted by a live Eskom powerline while herding goats in Lady Frere. The firm instructed Adv W Binase for the plaintiff.

Outcome: Eskom held 100% liable under section 26 of the Electricity Act. Quantum postponed sine die. Costs to plaintiff.

Reported Matter

Road Accident Fund v Legal Practice Council and Others

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Full Court) | 58145/2020 | [2021] ZAGPPHC 173; 2021 (6) SA 230 (GP) (9 April 2021)

Summary: The RAF sought extraordinary relief to suspend all writs of execution nationwide due to financial crisis. Mduzulwana Attorneys Inc was the 15th respondent, represented by Adv BP Geach SC.

Outcome: Structured interim suspension until 30 April 2021 with mandatory RAF payment obligations. RAF to pay all opposing costs.

Reported Matter

Spotprops 34 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate of Bridgetown

Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg | 2022/003485 | [2026] ZAGPJHC 171; [2026] 2 All SA 139 (GJ) (27 February 2026)

Summary: Spotprops sought appointment of a court administrator for the Bridgetown sectional title scheme. The firm acted for the Body Corporate.

Outcome: High Court jurisdiction under s16 STSMA confirmed, but application dismissed — EMA already stabilising affairs.

Reported Matter

L M obo L M and Another v Road Accident Fund

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria | 43630/2019 | [2025] ZAGPPHC 761 (22 July 2025)

Summary: The plaintiff brought two interlocutory applications in RAF loss-of-support litigation prosecuted by the firm (instructed by Adv B Geach SC and Adv FHH Kehrhahn).

Outcome: Rule 6(15) strike-out application dismissed with costs (including two counsel). Rule 30(2) application upheld — RAF Supplementary Notice of Motion set aside with costs.

Reported Matter

Mudawo and Others v Minister of Transport and Another

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Full Court) | 011795/2022 | [2024] ZAGPPHC 258 (26 March 2024)

Summary: Foreign nationals injured in road accidents challenged the Minister of Transport and RAF's June/July 2022 Management Directive and amended RAF1 form.

Outcome: Full Court reviewed and set aside the impugned measures. 'Any person' includes all claimants regardless of immigration status.

Reported Matter

Road Accident Fund v Mudawo and Others (Leave to Appeal)

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria | 011795/2022 | [2024] ZAGPPHC 655 (9 July 2024)

Summary: The RAF applied for leave to appeal the Mudawo judgment. The firm represented respondents with Adv FHH Kehrhahn and Adv S Cliff.

Outcome: Leave to appeal refused with costs. No reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Reported Matter

Road Accident Fund v Mudawo and Others

Supreme Court of Appeal | 1185/2024 | [2026] ZASCA 54 (16 April 2026)

Summary: The RAF appealed to the SCA contesting whether s17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act excludes undocumented foreigners from claiming compensation.

Outcome: SCA appeal dismissed with costs. Confirmed 'any person' in s17(1) includes all claimants; court orders and settlements remain binding.

Reported Matter

Mudawo v RAF — Constitutional Court

Constitutional Court of South Africa | Pending (2026)

Summary: Following the SCA judgment, the matter proceeds to the Constitutional Court — a matter of substantial constitutional importance concerning access to RAF compensation.

Outcome: All Mudawo v RAF matters pending before the Constitutional Court. Firm continues to act.

Reported Matter

Mautla and Others v RAF — Full Court Interim Order

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Full Court) | 29459/2021 | 15 June 2021

Summary: Claimants and legal bodies challenged the RAF's March 2021 Management Directive, Board Notice 58 of 2021, and substituted RAF1 form imposing strict new claim requirements.

Outcome: Full Court interdicted implementation of Board Notice 58 and substituted RAF1 form. Regulation 7(1) declared unconstitutional in part.

Reported Matter

Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Full Court) | 29459/2021 | [2023] ZAGPPHC 1843 (6 November 2023)

Summary: Final review of RAF decisions including Management Directive, Supplier Communication, Board Notice 58, and Substitution Notice.

Outcome: All impugned RAF decisions set aside. Rejected claims afforded 6 months to resubmit. Regulation 7(1) declared invalid.

Reported Matter

RAF v Mautla — Leave to Appeal (High Court & SCA)

Gauteng High Court, Pretoria & Supreme Court of Appeal | 29459/2021 | 414/2024 | [2025] ZASCA 200 (19 December 2025)

Summary: The RAF sought leave to appeal the Mautla Full Court judgment on whether the RAF had power to adopt Board Notices and substitute the RAF1 form.

Outcome: RAF leave to appeal granted; appeal on merits pending before the Supreme Court of Appeal.