Mjokovana v Road Accident Fund (3118/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 18 (28 March 2018)

Mjokovana v Road Accident Fund (3118/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 18 (28 March 2018)

The plaintiff's cause of action is based on section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act and not on breach of contract. The concepts of misrepresentation and estoppel raised in replication are not applicable to the statutory claim. The defendant's acknowledgment of liability and actual payment constituted an interruption of prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The five-year prescription period was interrupted on 11 April 2013 when the offer was made and accepted, and the claim has not prescribed. The defendant's argument that the Prescription Act does not apply is ill-conceived, as established authorities confirm its applicability to RAF claims where not incompatible. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Nomabhaso Mirriam Mjokovana; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
3118/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Stated Case
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dawood
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Road Accident Fund Act, Interruption of Prescription, Acknowledgment of Liability, Special Plea, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Road Accident Fund Act Interruption of Prescription Acknowledgment of Liability Special Plea Estoppel

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

Parties

Nomabhaso Mirriam Mjokovana

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined as a Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund has prescribed under the Road Accident Fund Act and/or the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's acknowledgment of liability and payment interrupted prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff can rely on estoppel or misrepresentation in replication when the particulars of claim are based on statute.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's cause of action is based on section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act and not on breach of contract. The concepts of misrepresentation and estoppel raised in replication are not applicable to the statutory claim. The defendant's acknowledgment of liability and actual payment constituted an interruption of prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The five-year prescription period was interrupted on 11 April 2013 when the offer was made and accepted, and the claim has not prescribed. The defendant's argument that the Prescription Act does not apply is ill-conceived, as established authorities confirm its applicability to RAF claims where not incompatible. The...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.