Bezuidenhout v Road Accident Fund (355/2002) [2003] ZASCA 69; [2003] 3 All SA 249 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 61 (SCA) (2 June 2003)

Bezuidenhout v Road Accident Fund (355/2002) [2003] ZASCA 69; [2003] 3 All SA 249 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 61 (SCA) (2 June 2003)

Regulation 2(1)(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act, which requires physical contact for compensation in unidentified vehicle cases, is ultra vires the empowering provisions of the Act. The regulation imposes a limitation not found in the Act and is inconsistent with its object of providing the greatest possible protection to victims of negligent driving. The Minister's power to make regulations under section 26(1) does not extend to excluding liability in non-contact cases, as such exclusion runs counter to the purpose of the Act. The legislative history shows that previous statutes expressly empowered the Minister to limit liability, but the current Act does not. Therefore, the regulation...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 69
Parties
Appellant: Adriaan Bezuidenhout; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2003
Case Number
355/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Declaratory Order Regarding Validity of Regulation
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Regulation 2(1)(d) declared ultra vires. Costs awarded to appellant, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Vivier, Farlam, Cameron, Conradie, Shongwe
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Road Accident Fund Act, Delegated Legislation, Regulatory Power, Compensation for Motor Vehicle Accidents
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Ultra Vires Road Accident Fund Act Delegated Legislation Regulatory Power Compensation for Motor Vehicle Accidents

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adriaan Bezuidenhout

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Declaratory Order Regarding Validity of Regulation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 2(1)(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is ultra vires the empowering provisions of the Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister was empowered to impose a physical contact requirement for compensation claims involving unidentified vehicles.
  3. 3 Whether the regulation is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 2(1)(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act, which requires physical contact for compensation in unidentified vehicle cases, is ultra vires the empowering provisions of the Act. The regulation imposes a limitation not found in the Act and is inconsistent with its object of providing the greatest possible protection to victims of negligent driving. The Minister's power to make regulations under section 26(1) does not extend to excluding liability in non-contact cases, as such exclusion runs counter to the purpose of the Act. The legislative history shows that previous statutes expressly empowered the Minister to limit liability, but the current Act does not. Therefore, the regulation...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Regulation 2(1)(d) declared ultra vires. Costs awarded to appellant, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • It is declared that regulation 2(1)(d) of the regulations issued in terms of section 26(1) of Act 56 of 1996 is ultra vires.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the hearing relating to the validity of regulation 2(1)(d).