The Gauteng Division of the High Court rules in favour of the LPIIF in its challenge to the constitutionality of the RAF’s ‘hit and run’ regulations. A copy of the judgment in Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC v Minister of Transport & another is available here.
FW Frost Gerhard Von Wielligh Attorneys Gauteng Division Case No:19714/2014 in which the plaintiff in this action claims compensation from the defendant and attorney, for damages, he has and will in future duffer arising from two incidents. – click here
Bvuma v RAF – a SGHC judgment by Judge Satchwell in which she takes the legal practitioners and experts to task over various aspects of the matter and absence of proper investigations and information to support the claim for future loss of earnings – click here
Daniels & 2 Others v RAF, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division, Case No: 8853/10. Serious Injuries – The interrelationship between the AMA Guides and the Narrative Test – click here
Motswai v RAF – another two Satchwell J judgments in the SGHC on similar issues to Bvuma (A) and then subsequently on the question of punitive costs orders arising out of these issues (B). click here for A – click here for B
Mlenzana v Goodricke and Franklin is a FSHC judgment of Judge Rampai regarding a firm of attorneys’ negligent handling of an RAF matter –click here
Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (7490/2008) – Important Case Law on Passengers Claims under the amended Act. In this matter, judgment was handed down in the Western Cape High Court by Bozalek J on 28 June 2010, ruling that:
- Sections 18 (1) (a) (i) and 18 (1) (b) of the RAF Act 56 of 1996 as they stood prior to 1 August 2008, were inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid;
- Section 18 (2) of the RAF Act 56 of 1996 as they stood prior to 1 August 2008, were inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid;
- Such declarations of invalidity would apply to all claims to be instituted against the RAF Act 56 of 1996, which as at the date of his order:
- Had not prescribed; and
- Had not been finally determined by judgments at first instance or on appeal; and
- Had not been finally determined by settlement duly concluded.
- *All such claims referred to in paragraph 3 above shall qualify for no greater compensation than that which would accrue under the provisions of the RAF Amendment Act, 19 of 2005, as it stood on 1 August 2008.
- The order was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation of the order of constitutional invalidity.
* The Plaintiffs’ attorneys applied to the Constitutional Court for an order setting aside the order in paragraph 4 above. The RAF and Minister of Transport in turn appealed against the whole of the order.
Mvumvu & Others v Minister of Transport and Road Accident Fund, Constitutional Court 67/10.
Please click here to view the Constitutional Court’s decision.
On 17 February 2011, the Constitutional Court confirmed the above ruling of the Western Cape High Court in declaring invalid, the so-called “passenger claims” set out in sections 18(1)(a)(i) 18 (1) (b) and 18 (2) of the pre-amendment Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (i.e. as it was prior to 1 August 2008).
However, the invalidity was suspended for a period of 18 months from 17 February 2011, to enable Parliament to “cure the defect”. The Road Accident Fund (Transitional Provisions) Act 15 of 2012 (TPA) came into operation on 13 February 2013.
- Myhill ELE N.O. v RAF) dealing with restitutio in integrum in the case of a minor’s claim settled with the RAF. To view the judgment Click here.
- RAF v Duma 202/2012 and three related cases (Health Professions Council of South Africa as Amicus Curiae)[2012] ZASCA 169 (27 November 2012).This is essential reading for all RAF practitioners. It deals with claims for general damages under the amended RAF Act – click here
- RAF v Faria (567/13) [2014] ZASCA 65 (19 May 2014) The Supreme court of Appeal (SCA) found that under the new scheme established under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as amended, read with Regulations promulgated under the Act, a ‘serious injury’ is to be determined in accordance with procedures prescribed in Regulation 3 and that the RAF is not bound by the determination of a ‘serious injury’ by its own expert.
It held that general damages may only be awarded for injuries that have been assessed as ‘serious’ in terms of the regulations and that this assessment is an administrative rather than a judicial decision. Previously, a joint minute prepared by experts from both sides would ordinarily have been conclusive in deciding the nature of the third party’s injuries, but this was no longer the case. The assessment of damages as ‘serious’ is now determined administratively in the manner prescribed by the regulations and not by the courts.
The SCA concluded that the South Gauteng High Court high had wrongly awarded the plaintiff general damages. It upheld the appeal and set aside the award for general damages of R350 000. Click here
- RAF v Myhill NO, No 505/2012 {2013} ZASCA 73– In which the SCA found that restitutio in integrum applied to the two minors claims that had been settled between their mother and the RAF – click here
- Santam Ltd v Ethwar 1999 (2) SA 244 (SCA).In line with this appeal court judgment the RAF will not be paying costs where a writ has not been issued within three years of the taxation of the bill of costs
- Vanessa da Silva v the Road Accident Fund and Another, Free State High Court, Case No 1349/2008. 23 January 2014– in which the Court declared S19 (b) (ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. (Applies only to matters that have not been finalised (settlement, judgment, prescription) before the date of this order.)click here
- Van Zyl MM v Road Accident Fund (case no. 34299/2009 SGHC) Judge Satchwell’s judgment on the prescription period for submission of the RAF 4was to be taken on appeal by the RAF. The appeal has now been withdrawn. click here