Mashaba obo Muchanga v Road Accident Fund (A16/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 611 (8 July 2024)

Mashaba obo Muchanga v Road Accident Fund (A16/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 611 (8 July 2024)

The Constitutional Court's decision in Van Zyl NO v RAF clarified that, although the Prescription Act does not suspend prescription under the Road Accident Fund Act, common law impossibility and incapacity principles apply to protect disabled claimants. Since Mr. Muchanga was rendered disabled on the day of the collision and incapable of acting, prescription did not run against him until a curator ad litem was appointed. The order of the court a quo upholding the special plea of prescription was therefore incorrect and must be set aside. The appeal is upheld, and the special plea is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 611
Parties
Appellant: Mashaba, Advocate MG NO (obo Mario Francisco Muchanga); Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 2024
Case Number
A16/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order Upholding Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
Ceylon, Millar, Ntuli
Legal Topics
Prescription, Road Accident Fund Act, Curatorship, Disability and Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Road Accident Fund Act Curatorship Disability and Access to Courts

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashaba, Advocate MG NO (obo Mario Francisco Muchanga)

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order Upholding Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the special plea of prescription under section 23 of the Road Accident Fund Act applies to a claimant rendered disabled at the time of the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a curator ad litem post facto can suspend the running of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether common law impossibility and incapacity principles rescue the claim from prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court's decision in Van Zyl NO v RAF clarified that, although the Prescription Act does not suspend prescription under the Road Accident Fund Act, common law impossibility and incapacity principles apply to protect disabled claimants. Since Mr. Muchanga was rendered disabled on the day of the collision and incapable of acting, prescription did not run against him until a curator ad litem was appointed. The order of the court a quo upholding the special plea of prescription was therefore incorrect and must be set aside. The appeal is upheld, and the special plea is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.