Makgati v Road Accident Fund (7316/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 27 (12 February 2025)

Makgati v Road Accident Fund (7316/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 27 (12 February 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was lodged within the prescribed three-year period, but the summons was issued outside the five-year period stipulated by section 23(3) of the RAF Act. However, the court held that section 23 is not applicable to the contractual claims instituted by the plaintiff, as both parties misconceived the basis of the claims in the pleadings. The special plea based on prescription under section 23 was therefore dismissed. The court emphasized that the RAF's failure to process the claim to completion and inform the plaintiff of prescription was to be deprecated. The plaintiff cannot be deprived of her costs, and the defendant is ordered to pay costs.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 27
Parties
Plaintiff: Theresa Ramatsimele Makgati; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2025
Case Number
7316/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription; Trial on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Special plea dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
Muller
Legal Topics
Prescription Under Raf Act, Road Accident Claims, Special Plea, Section 23 Raf Act, Duty of Care by Raf
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Under Raf Act Road Accident Claims Special Plea Section 23 Raf Act Duty of Care by Raf

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theresa Ramatsimele Makgati

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea on Prescription; Trial on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund has prescribed under section 23(3) of the RAF Act.
  2. 2 Whether the RAF owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to prevent prescription of her claim.
  3. 3 Whether section 23 of the RAF Act applies to the contractual claims instituted by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was lodged within the prescribed three-year period, but the summons was issued outside the five-year period stipulated by section 23(3) of the RAF Act. However, the court held that section 23 is not applicable to the contractual claims instituted by the plaintiff, as both parties misconceived the basis of the claims in the pleadings. The special plea based on prescription under section 23 was therefore dismissed. The court emphasized that the RAF's failure to process the claim to completion and inform the plaintiff of prescription was to be deprecated. The plaintiff cannot be deprived of her costs, and the defendant is ordered to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Special plea dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed.
  • The defendant is to pay the costs.