Da Silva v Road Accident Fund and Another (CCT 29/14) [2014] ZACC 21; 2014 (8) BCLR 917 (CC); 2014 (5) SA 573 (CC) (19 June 2014)

Da Silva v Road Accident Fund and Another (CCT 29/14) [2014] ZACC 21; 2014 (8) BCLR 917 (CC); 2014 (5) SA 573 (CC) (19 June 2014)

Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, excluded compensation for persons who were members of the driver's household or owed a duty of support, such as spouses and children, while allowing compensation for others. This differentiation was not rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose and amounted to indirect discrimination on the basis of marital status and age, both of which are listed grounds in section 9(3) of the Constitution. The discrimination was presumptively unfair and no justification was provided to rebut this presumption. The provision therefore violated the right to equality and was inconsistent with the Constitution....

Citation
[2014] ZACC 21
Parties
Applicant: Vanessa Da Silva; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Minister of Transport
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Case Number
CCT 29/14
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Order of Constitutional Invalidity
Outcome
The Constitutional Court confirmed the order of constitutional invalidity of section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, and ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Unfair Discrimination, Road Accident Fund Act, Harksen Test, Retrospective Remedy
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Unfair Discrimination Road Accident Fund Act Harksen Test Retrospective Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vanessa Da Silva

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Order of Constitutional Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, violate the right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Is the differentiation created by section 19(b)(ii) rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose?
  3. 3 Does the provision amount to unfair discrimination on the basis of marital status and age?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, excluded compensation for persons who were members of the driver's household or owed a duty of support, such as spouses and children, while allowing compensation for others. This differentiation was not rationally connected to a legitimate government purpose and amounted to indirect discrimination on the basis of marital status and age, both of which are listed grounds in section 9(3) of the Constitution. The discrimination was presumptively unfair and no justification was provided to rebut this presumption. The provision therefore violated the right to equality and was inconsistent with the Constitution....

Court Disposition

The Constitutional Court confirmed the order of constitutional invalidity of section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, and ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The order of the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein declaring section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid is confirmed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.