Justice is open to all; like the Ritz Hotel—Sir James Mathew

The Justice Fund can assist you in getting access to justice through:





Litigation funding enables a party to litigate or arbitrate without having to pay for it. A third party professional funder pays some or all of the costs/expenses associated with a dispute in return for a share of the proceeds of the dispute if it is successful.







A class action, class suit, or representative action is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group.







Avoid costly and time-consuming litigation through facilitated settlements.

Fighting cases in court can be time consuming and take years before there is an outcome. There is also the possibility of the case escalating through the court hierarch right up to the Constitutional Court.





The investigation of corporate crime and corruption for the purposes of reporting to appropriate authorities or founding recovery claims.

The 5 requirements for Justice Fund to assist you to get your case into court:

1: The party you want to sue can pay

2: You have a good case

3: Your claim is between R5 – 50 million

4: You have locus standi (the right to bring the claim)

5: It’s a fresh case (no appeals etc)

For claims larger than R 50 million []

About litigation funding []

The funding of litigation by third parties with no direct interest in the dispute has had an interesting history in our law. The practice was considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-operative Ltd (PWC).

Agreements in terms whereof one party (the funder) undertook to provide funds to enable the other (the litigant) to enable the latter to prosecute its case in return for a share in the proceeds of litigation go back to the Roman and Roman Dutch law period. Such agreements were called pacta de quota litis and were looked upon with disfavour. In South Africa the developments around such agreements received the influence of the English law where such contracts were referred to as “maintenance and champerty” agreements.

Prior to 1994 South African courts took a dim and uncompromising view of any agreements in terms whereof an outsider provided finance to enable a party to litigate in return for a share of the proceeds of the action, if that party was successful. These were/are called champertous agreements deriving the name from English law influence. The courts viewed such agreements as contrary to public policy and void. The courts consequently refused to enforce such agreements or to entertain litigation that flowed from them.

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Appeal in PWC reconsidered the unlawfulness of champertous agreements in the light of “changed circumstances and, in particular, in the light of the Constitution.”Having considered the developments in English law, which increasingly recognised the important role played by champertous agreements in promoting access to justice, the Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that a clear departure from the past was required.

The court then concluded that:

“…upholding agreements between a litigant and a third party who finances the litigation for reward is also consistent with the constitutional values underlining freedom of contract.”

“Accordingly it must be held that an agreement in terms of which a stranger to a lawsuit advances funds to a litigant on condition that his remuneration, in case the litigant wins the action, is to be part of the proceeds of the suit, is not contrary to public policy.”

{Extract from Gold Fields Limited and Others v Motley Rice LLC}


Back Back to top