Moloi and Others v Road Accident Fund (413/98) [2000] ZASCA 53; 2001 (3) SA 546 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 576 (A) (29 September 2000)

Moloi and Others v Road Accident Fund (413/98) [2000] ZASCA 53; 2001 (3) SA 546 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 576 (A) (29 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regulations made under section 6 of Act 93 of 1989 do not have the status of an Act of Parliament and therefore cannot oust the provisions of Chapter III of the Prescription Act in respect of minors' claims. The Agreement itself is expressly given the force of law as an Act of Parliament, but the regulations are not. The court found that the Minister was not empowered to convert the unconditional liability created by article 40 of the Agreement into a conditional liability by regulation. Therefore, the prescription period in Regulation 3(2)(a)(i) does not apply to minors, and sections 13 and 16 of the Prescription Act prevent prescription from...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 53
Parties
Appellant: Antonica Moloi; Appellant: Dinah Gambu; Appellant: Evelinah Ngwenya; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
413/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment Upholding Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Smalberger, Vivier, Howie, Streicher, Farlam
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 13, Prescription Act Section 16, Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act, Ultra Vires Regulation, Minor Claims Prescription, Unidentified Vehicle Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 13 Prescription Act Section 16 Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act Ultra Vires Regulation Minor Claims Prescription Unidentified Vehicle Liability

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonica Moloi

Appellant

Dinah Gambu

Appellant

Evelinah Ngwenya

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment Upholding Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a minor's claim under article 40 of the Agreement establishing the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund prescribe after two years if the vehicle is unidentified and no claim is delivered within that period?
  2. 2 Are the regulations made under section 6 of Act 93 of 1989 valid to the extent that they allow prescription to run against minors?
  3. 3 Do sections 13 and 16 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 apply to such claims, preventing prescription from running against minors?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regulations made under section 6 of Act 93 of 1989 do not have the status of an Act of Parliament and therefore cannot oust the provisions of Chapter III of the Prescription Act in respect of minors' claims. The Agreement itself is expressly given the force of law as an Act of Parliament, but the regulations are not. The court found that the Minister was not empowered to convert the unconditional liability created by article 40 of the Agreement into a conditional liability by regulation. Therefore, the prescription period in Regulation 3(2)(a)(i) does not apply to minors, and sections 13 and 16 of the Prescription Act prevent prescription from...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'Defendant's special plea is dismissed with costs.'