Majake v Road Accident Fund (4722/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 457 (20 November 2023)

Majake v Road Accident Fund (4722/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 457 (20 November 2023)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund was governed by section 23 of the RAF Act, which requires that summons be issued and served within five years from the date the cause of action arose. Although the plaintiff lodged his claim timeously and issued summons in the regional court within the prescribed period, the subsequent summons in the high court was issued after the five-year period had expired. The court found that the RAF Act does not provide for interruption of prescription by proceedings in the wrong forum, distinguishing the present matter from cases under the Prescription Act. The plaintiff's attorneys failed to issue summons in the high court...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 457
Parties
Plaintiff: Pheelo Jonas Majake; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Case Number
4722/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas of Prescription and Lis Alibi Pendens Raised and Adjudicated
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs due to prescription and lis alibi pendens.
Judges
Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Prescription Under Raf Act, Lis Alibi Pendens, Road Accident Fund Claims, Forum Jurisdiction, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Under Raf Act Lis Alibi Pendens Road Accident Fund Claims Forum Jurisdiction Quantum of Damages

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pheelo Jonas Majake

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas of Prescription and Lis Alibi Pendens Raised and Adjudicated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund has prescribed under section 23 of the RAF Act.
  2. 2 Whether the issuing of summons in the regional court interrupted prescription for the claim subsequently instituted in the high court.
  3. 3 Whether the plea of lis alibi pendens is applicable and bars the plaintiff's claim in the high court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund was governed by section 23 of the RAF Act, which requires that summons be issued and served within five years from the date the cause of action arose. Although the plaintiff lodged his claim timeously and issued summons in the regional court within the prescribed period, the subsequent summons in the high court was issued after the five-year period had expired. The court found that the RAF Act does not provide for interruption of prescription by proceedings in the wrong forum, distinguishing the present matter from cases under the Prescription Act. The plaintiff's attorneys failed to issue summons in the high court...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs due to prescription and lis alibi pendens.

Orders

  • The defendant's first special plea of prescription is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claim has become extinguished by prescription.