Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2011 (2) SA 26 (CC)

Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide
2011 (2) SA 26 (CC)

2011 (2) SA p26

Citation	2011 (2) SA 26 (CC)
Case No	CCT 10/2010
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Ngcobo CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Mogoeng J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J
Heard	May 11, 2010
Judgment	September 30, 2010
Counsel	A Beyleveld SC (with S Budlender) for the first and second appellants.; V Soni SC (with S Louw) for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G

H Motor vehicle accidents — Compensation — Claim against Road Accident Fund — Prescription — Provision regulating prescription under RAF Act inconsistent with those of Prescription Act — Latter statute requiring creditor to have 'knowledge of the identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises' — Said requirement not applicable to claims under RAF Act — Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, s 23(1), and Prescription Act 68 of 1969, s 12(3). I

Constitutional law — Human rights — Right of access to courts — Statutory prescription of claims for compensation against Road Accident Fund — Though limiting constitutional right of access to courts, limitation reasonable and justifiable — Prescription not unconstitutional — Road Accident J Fund Act 56 of 1996, s 23(1) read with Constitution, ss 34 and 36.

2011 (2) SA p27

Headnote : Kopnota

The Prescription Act 68 of 1969 regulates the prescription of claims in general, A and the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (RAF Act) is tailored for the specific area it deals with, namely claims for compensation in terms of s 17 against the Road Accident Fund for those injured in road accidents. The legislature enacted the RAF Act — and included provisions dealing with prescription in it — for the very reason that the Prescription Act was not regarded as appropriate for this area. Looking for consistency between the B two Acts in this context is a quest bound to fail. To argue that the Prescription Act and the RAF Act are not inconsistent, because the RAF Act says nothing about the issue of knowledge of the claim, and that knowledge of the identity of the debtor could thus be read into the RAF Act, would amount to circular reasoning. The argument would ignore the essential difference between the two Acts. Practically, the meaning of the two C different provisions would be the same. Section 23(1) of the RAF Act would be rendered meaningless. This is not logically tenable. Furthermore, while s 12(3) of the Prescription Act stipulates prescription to begin to run as soon as the debt is due, in other words, in terms of a claimable debt, s 23(1) states that prescription is to start running as soon as the cause of action has arisen, which generally refers to the date of the accident. The very fact that D ss 12(3) and 23(1) define the point at which prescription begins to run in different terms gives rise to an inconsistency. The Prescription Act and RAF Act are thus inconsistent. Therefore, s 12(3) of the Prescription Act, which requires the creditor to have 'knowledge of the identity of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises' before prescription begins to run cannot apply to claims under the RAF Act. (Paragraphs [50] – [53] at 41H – 42D.) E

The right of access to courts as provided for in s 34 of the Constitution is indeed limited by s 23(1) of the RAF Act. A time limit is imposed with regard to claims for compensation against the RAF. Time bars limit the right to seek justifiable redress. The starting point for the time period is fixed and is F in some respects inflexible, and no knowledge of the existence of the RAF is required. This impacts on the exercise of a claimant's right to approach a court. However, the potential harm to the viability and functioning of the RAF, should a knowledge requirement or provision for condonation be imported into the scheme of s 23(1), outweighs the possible negative impact of the provision, in its present form, on people who might not come to know about the Fund for three years after the accident in which they G sustained injuries. The RAF Act was legislated for a specific area and purpose. It limits the right of access to courts, but the importance of the purpose, the nature and extent of the limitation, and the relation between the limitation and its purpose, render the limitation proportional to its purpose and thus reasonable and justifiable. Accordingly, the limitation of the right of access to courts by s 23(1) of the RAF Act is reasonable and H justifiable under s 36 of the Constitution. Taking all relevant considerations into account, claimants are afforded an adequate and fair opportunity to seek judicial redress. Section 23(1) is therefore not unconstitutional. (Paragraphs [62] and [94] – [95] at 44E and 52C – E.) (Froneman J, with Jafta J and Yacoob J concurring, dissenting.)

Cases Considered

Annotations: I

Reported cases

Southern Africa

Aetna Insurance Co v Minister of Justice 1960 (3) SA 273 (A): referred to

Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) (2007 (7) BCLR 691): considered and compared J

2011 (2) SA p28

Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others 2007 (6) SA 313 (SCA) (2007 (11) BCLR 1214): considered A

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) (2004 (7) BCLR 687): referred to

Beinash and Another v Ernst & Young and Others 1999 (2) SA 116 (CC) (1999 (2) BCLR 125): compared

Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC) (1996 (4) BCLR 449): dictum in para [71] considered B

Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources, and Others 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) (2009 (10) BCLR 1014): applied

Boundary Financing Ltd v Protea Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2009 (3) SA 447 (SCA): considered

Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others 2009 (6) SA 323 (CC) (2009 (11) BCLR 1075): applied C

Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and Another 2000 (1) SA 409 (CC) (1999 (12) BCLR 1420): dictum in para [16] considered

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education 2000 (4) SA 757 (CC) (2000 (10) BCLR 1051): compared

Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC) (1995 (10) BCLR 1382): dictum in para [9] considered D

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Consultants (Pty) Ltd v Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Pty) Ltd 1991 (1) SA 525 (A): considered

Desai NO v Desai and Others 1996 (1) SA 141 (A): considered

Engelbrecht v Road Accident Fund and Another 2007 (6) SA 96 (CC) (2007 (5) BCLR 457): applied E

Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) (1996 (1) BCLR 1): dictum in para [26] considered

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) (2000 (11) BCLR 1169): considered F

Hartman v Minister van Polisie 1983 (2) SA 489 (A): considered

Hassam v Jacobs NO and Others 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) (2009 (11) BCLR 1148): referred to

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC) (2005 (1) BCLR 78): dictum in para [55] compared

Kotze NO v Santam Insurance Ltd 1994 (1) SA 237 (C): dictum at 246F – 247J considered G

Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) (2010 (3) BCLR 239): dictum in para [67] considered

McKenzie v Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16: dictum at 23 applied

Member of the Executive Council for Development Planning and Local Government, Gauteng v Democratic Party and Others 1998 (4) SA 1157 (CC) (1998 (7) BCLR 855): dictum in para [64] considered H

Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden 2004 (6) SA 121 (CC) (2004 (11) BCLR 1125): referred to

Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) and Others 2005 (3) SA 280 (CC) (2004 (5) BCLR 445): dictum in para [34] compared I

Mohlomi v Minister of Defence 1997 (1) SA 124 (CC) (1996 (12) BCLR 1559): applied

Moise v Greater Germiston Transitional Local Council: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Intervening (Women's Legal Centre as Amicus Curiae) J 2001 (4) SA 491 (CC) (2001 (8) BCLR 765): applied

2011 (2) SA p29

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others A 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC) (2000 (1) BCLR 39): dictum in para [28] considered

Njongi v MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape 2008 (4) SA 237 (CC) (2008 (6) BCLR 571): considered

Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division, and Others B 2003 (3) SA 345 (CC) (2003 (1) SACR 425; 2003 (4) BCLR 357): dictum in paras [20] – [21] considered

Potgieter v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Gesondheid, Provinsiale Regering, Gauteng en Andere 2001 (11) BCLR 1175 (CC): considered and compared

Road Accident Fund v Mdeyide (Minister of Transport Intervening) C 2008 (1) SA 535 (CC) (2007 (7) BCLR 805): referred to

Road Accident Fund v Smith NO 1999 (1) SA 92 (SCA) ([1998] 4 All SA 429): dicta at 98C and 98F applied

S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 1; 1995 (6) BCLR 665): dictum in para [100] considered

S v Manamela and Another (Director-General of Justice Intervening) D 2000 (3) SA 1 (CC) (2000 (1) SACR 414; 2000 (5) BCLR 491): considered

S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC) (1995 (1) SACR 568; 1995 (4) BCLR 401): dictum in para [21] considered

Shaik v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others E 2004 (3) SA 599 (CC) (2004 (1) SACR 105; 2004 (4) BCLR 333): referred to

Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Neethling NO 1958 (2) SA 25 (C): considered

Terblanche v South African Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1983 (2) SA 501 (N): considered

Truter and...