Apdol v Road Accident Fund (5011/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 363 (3 August 2012)

Apdol v Road Accident Fund (5011/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 363 (3 August 2012)

The court held that the repeal of the Age of Majority Act and the reduction of the age of majority by the Children's Act did not operate retrospectively to affect the plaintiff's accrued rights. Section 12(2) of the Interpretation Act protects rights acquired under repealed legislation unless a contrary intention appears, which was not evident in the Children's Act. The plaintiff was a minor when her cause of action arose, and prescription only began running when she turned 21, as provided by the Age of Majority Act. The claim was lodged within the three-year period following her attainment of majority. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the legislative change was merely...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 363
Parties
Plaintiff: U D Apdol; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2012
Case Number
5011/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Prescription of Claims, Age of Majority, Children S Act, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Procedure Prescription of Claims Age of Majority Children S Act Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U D Apdol

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the reduction of the age of majority from 21 to 18 years by section 17 of the Children's Act affect the prescription period for a minor's damages claim under the Road Accident Fund Act?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff's claim for loss of support prescribed in terms of section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act, given the repeal of the Age of Majority Act?
  3. 3 Does the Children's Act operate retrospectively to affect accrued rights under the Age of Majority Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the repeal of the Age of Majority Act and the reduction of the age of majority by the Children's Act did not operate retrospectively to affect the plaintiff's accrued rights. Section 12(2) of the Interpretation Act protects rights acquired under repealed legislation unless a contrary intention appears, which was not evident in the Children's Act. The plaintiff was a minor when her cause of action arose, and prescription only began running when she turned 21, as provided by the Age of Majority Act. The claim was lodged within the three-year period following her attainment of majority. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the legislative change was merely...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.