Mbele v Road Accident Fund (799/15) [2016] ZASCA 134; [2016] 4 All SA 752 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 34 (SCA) (29 September 2016)

Mbele v Road Accident Fund (799/15) [2016] ZASCA 134; [2016] 4 All SA 752 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 34 (SCA) (29 September 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an undertaking issued by the Road Accident Fund in terms of section 17(4)(a)(i) for future medical expenses does not create a separate contractual obligation subject to the Prescription Act. Instead, such claims remain part of the original claim for damages under section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The applicable prescription period is governed by section 23(3) of the Act, which provides a five-year period from the date the cause of action arises, namely when the medical costs are incurred and proof is furnished. The subsequent amendment to section 23(3) clarifies that claims for payment under an undertaking are included in this prescription...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 134
Parties
Appellant: Luvuyo Nicolaas Mbele; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Case Number
799/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed.
Judges
Shongwe, Saldulker, Swain, Zondi, Dlodlo
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Prescription, Future Medical Expenses, Undertaking, Cause of Action
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Prescription Future Medical Expenses Undertaking Cause of Action

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

Parties

Luvuyo Nicolaas Mbele

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an undertaking issued by the Road Accident Fund in terms of section 17(4)(a)(i) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical expenses is subject to prescription under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 or the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 What is the effect of the amendment to section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act on the prescription of claims based on such undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an undertaking issued by the Road Accident Fund in terms of section 17(4)(a)(i) for future medical expenses does not create a separate contractual obligation subject to the Prescription Act. Instead, such claims remain part of the original claim for damages under section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The applicable prescription period is governed by section 23(3) of the Act, which provides a five-year period from the date the cause of action arises, namely when the medical costs are incurred and proof is furnished. The subsequent amendment to section 23(3) clarifies that claims for payment under an undertaking are included in this prescription...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.'