Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (CCT322/17) [2019] ZACC 11; 2019 (6) BCLR 745 (CC) (26 March 2019)

Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (CCT322/17) [2019] ZACC 11; 2019 (6) BCLR 745 (CC) (26 March 2019)

The Constitutional Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals based solely on factual disputes. The applicant's case rested on factual findings made by the trial court, which found the applicant to be an unreliable witness due to contradictory versions of events. The applicant failed to establish a factual basis for his claim that his injuries fell within the ambit of sections 17 and 20 of the Road Accident Fund Act. The alleged constitutional issue regarding legislative interpretation was not substantiated by the facts. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZACC 11
Parties
Applicant: Ndishavhelafhi Thomas Nekokwane; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2019
Case Number
CCT 322/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court, Road Accident Fund Act, Interpretation of Legislation, Factual Dispute, Leave to Appeal
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court Road Accident Fund Act Interpretation of Legislation Factual Dispute Leave to Appeal

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndishavhelafhi Thomas Nekokwane

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal in the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant's injury fall within the ambit of sections 17 and 20 of the Road Accident Fund Act?
  2. 2 Does the Constitutional Court have jurisdiction to entertain a purely factual dispute?
  3. 3 Did the trial court err in its interpretation of section 20(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals based solely on factual disputes. The applicant's case rested on factual findings made by the trial court, which found the applicant to be an unreliable witness due to contradictory versions of events. The applicant failed to establish a factual basis for his claim that his injuries fell within the ambit of sections 17 and 20 of the Road Accident Fund Act. The alleged constitutional issue regarding legislative interpretation was not substantiated by the facts. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.