Mdunjana v Road Accident Fund (52582/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 618 (18 August 2022)

Mdunjana v Road Accident Fund (52582/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 618 (18 August 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff was objectively prevented from delivering his claim to the Road Accident Fund within the prescribed period due to the national COVID-19 lockdown and the closure of the Fund's offices. The impossibility was not of the plaintiff's own making but arose from legal and factual circumstances beyond his control. Applying the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held that prescription did not run during the period of impossibility, and the plaintiff was entitled to lodge his claim within a reasonable period after the offices reopened. The claim was delivered within such period, and the special plea of prescription was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 618
Parties
Plaintiff: Mdunjana, SE; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2022
Case Number
52582/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Trial on Special Plea of Prescription; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs; liability conceded by defendant; separation of issues ordered.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Prescription, Road Accident Fund Act, Impossibility Principle, Covid19 Lockdown Effects
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Road Accident Fund Act Impossibility Principle Covid19 Lockdown Effects

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mdunjana, SE

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Trial on Special Plea of Prescription; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund was prescribed due to late lodgment.
  2. 2 Whether the national COVID-19 lockdown and closure of the defendant's offices rendered compliance with the prescriptive period impossible.
  3. 3 Whether the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia applies to the prescription period under the Road Accident Fund Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was objectively prevented from delivering his claim to the Road Accident Fund within the prescribed period due to the national COVID-19 lockdown and the closure of the Fund's offices. The impossibility was not of the plaintiff's own making but arose from legal and factual circumstances beyond his control. Applying the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held that prescription did not run during the period of impossibility, and the plaintiff was entitled to lodge his claim within a reasonable period after the offices reopened. The claim was delivered within such period, and the special plea of prescription was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs; liability conceded by defendant; separation of issues ordered.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.
  • Issues of liability and quantum of damages are separated in terms of Rule 33(4).