Mahano and Others v Road Accident Fund and Another (20008/2014) [2015] ZASCA 23; 2015 (6) SA 237 (SCA) (20 March 2015)

Mahano and Others v Road Accident Fund and Another (20008/2014) [2015] ZASCA 23; 2015 (6) SA 237 (SCA) (20 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) does not require the Minister of Transport to publish operational guidelines before the AMA Guides can be applied in assessing whether an injury is serious for the purposes of general damages under the Road Accident Fund Act. The language of the regulation, specifically the words 'if any', denotes that the publication of operational guidelines or amendments is discretionary. The obligation to apply the AMA Guides is placed on the medical practitioner, conditional upon the existence of any published guidelines, but there is no obligation on the Minister to publish such guidelines. The court found that the appellants'...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 23
Parties
Appellant: Malefane Kemuel Mahano; Appellant: Mmaphuti Grace Kubjana; Appellant: Roland Sydney Thomsen; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Minister of Transport
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2015
Case Number
20008/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Shongwe, Willis, Gorven, Meyer
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Serious Injury Assessment, Interpretation of Regulations, American Medical Association Guides
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Serious Injury Assessment Interpretation of Regulations American Medical Association Guides

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malefane Kemuel Mahano

Appellant

Mmaphuti Grace Kubjana

Appellant

Roland Sydney Thomsen

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations requires the Minister of Transport to publish operational guidelines before the AMA Guides can be applied in assessing serious injury.
  2. 2 Whether the application of the AMA Guides is dependent on the existence of operational guidelines published by the Minister.
  3. 3 Whether claimants are excused from compliance with the regulations due to impossibility if operational guidelines are not published.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) does not require the Minister of Transport to publish operational guidelines before the AMA Guides can be applied in assessing whether an injury is serious for the purposes of general damages under the Road Accident Fund Act. The language of the regulation, specifically the words 'if any', denotes that the publication of operational guidelines or amendments is discretionary. The obligation to apply the AMA Guides is placed on the medical practitioner, conditional upon the existence of any published guidelines, but there is no obligation on the Minister to publish such guidelines. The court found that the appellants'...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.