Da Silva v Road Accident Fund and Another (1349/2008) [2014] ZAFSHC 249 (24 January 2014)

Da Silva v Road Accident Fund and Another (1349/2008) [2014] ZAFSHC 249 (24 January 2014)

Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it stood prior to 1 August 2008, is inconsistent with the Constitution because it arbitrarily and unfairly excludes certain categories of social passengers from compensation solely on the basis of their relationship to the driver, such as being a member of the household or owing a duty of support. This exclusion constitutes unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex, age, and birth, and is not rationally connected to any legitimate governmental purpose. The provision undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law, as well as the rights to dignity,...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 249
Parties
Plaintiff: Venessa Da Silva; Defendant: Road Accident Fund; Defendant: Minister of Transport
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Case Number
1349/2008
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Application / First Instance Judgment on Constitutional Invalidity Application
Outcome
Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, is declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The applicant is entitled to compensation and an undertaking for future medical expenses, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court.
Judges
M. H. Rampai
Legal Topics
Equality Before Law, Unfair Discrimination, Road Accident Fund Act, Social Security Legislation, Constitutional Invalidity, Transitional Provisions
Constitutional Law Delict Equality Before Law Unfair Discrimination Road Accident Fund Act Social Security Legislation Constitutional Invalidity Transitional Provisions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venessa Da Silva

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Minister of Transport

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Application / First Instance Judgment on Constitutional Invalidity Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it stood prior to 1 August 2008, is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory exclusion of claims by social passengers who are members of the household or owed a duty of support by the driver constitutes unfair discrimination under section 9 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy for the constitutional invalidity, considering transitional legislative measures and the interests of the Road Accident Fund.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it stood prior to 1 August 2008, is inconsistent with the Constitution because it arbitrarily and unfairly excludes certain categories of social passengers from compensation solely on the basis of their relationship to the driver, such as being a member of the household or owing a duty of support. This exclusion constitutes unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex, age, and birth, and is not rationally connected to any legitimate governmental purpose. The provision undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law, as well as the rights to dignity,...

Court Disposition

Section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, is declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The applicant is entitled to compensation and an undertaking for future medical expenses, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • It is declared that section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it read prior to 1 August 2008, is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
  • The order does not apply to claims in respect of which a final settlement has been reached, which have prescribed, or in which a final judgment has been granted before the date of this order.