Mnguni v Road Accident Fund (1090/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1074 (26 November 2015)

Mnguni v Road Accident Fund (1090/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1074 (26 November 2015)

The court held that under the current law, a claim for loss of support by a dependant is based on common law delictual liability. For such a claim to succeed, the death of the breadwinner must have been caused wrongfully, negligently, or intentionally by another person, not by the deceased himself or herself. The Road Accident Fund Act, even after the abolition of section 19(b)(ii), does not entitle a dependant to claim for loss of support where the deceased breadwinner was solely responsible for the collision. The principle of equality under section 9 of the Constitution does not require compensation in these circumstances, as all claimants must prove fault against an insured driver or...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1074
Parties
Plaintiff: Hlengiwe Mnguni; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Case Number
1090/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Point in Limine; Merits Reserved
Outcome
The point in limine succeeds in favour of the defendant. Costs are costs in the main action.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Road Accident Fund Act, Dependants Action, Common Law Delictual Liability, Statutory Interpretation
Delict Civil Procedure Loss of Support Road Accident Fund Act Dependants Action Common Law Delictual Liability Statutory Interpretation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlengiwe Mnguni

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Point in Limine; Merits Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dependant of a deceased breadwinner who was solely responsible for a fatal motor vehicle collision is entitled to claim compensation for loss of support from the Road Accident Fund under the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether the abolition of section 19(b)(ii) of the Road Accident Fund Act and the Constitutional Court's decision in Da Silva v Road Accident Fund altered the position regarding claims by dependants where the deceased was solely negligent.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of equality under section 9 of the Constitution requires compensation for dependants in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that under the current law, a claim for loss of support by a dependant is based on common law delictual liability. For such a claim to succeed, the death of the breadwinner must have been caused wrongfully, negligently, or intentionally by another person, not by the deceased himself or herself. The Road Accident Fund Act, even after the abolition of section 19(b)(ii), does not entitle a dependant to claim for loss of support where the deceased breadwinner was solely responsible for the collision. The principle of equality under section 9 of the Constitution does not require compensation in these circumstances, as all claimants must prove fault against an insured driver or...

Court Disposition

The point in limine succeeds in favour of the defendant. Costs are costs in the main action.

Orders

  • The point in limine is upheld in favour of the defendant.
  • Costs are reserved for the main action.