Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (501/2012) [2017] ZALMPTHC 7 (20 July 2017)

Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (501/2012) [2017] ZALMPTHC 7 (20 July 2017)

The court found that the TLB was stationary at all material times and its tyres did not move from the parked position. The falling of the front loading bucket, although caused by gravity, did not constitute movement of the motor vehicle as required by section 20(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Act contemplates movement of the vehicle itself, not merely a component falling due to gravity. The plaintiff's evidence was contradictory and unreliable, with three different versions presented under oath. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the claim does not fall within the statutory liability of the Road Accident Fund and must be...

Citation
[2017] ZALMPTHC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Nekokwane Ndishavhelafhi Thomas; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Case Number
501/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
AML Phatudi
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Motor Vehicle Definition, Liability for Stationary Vehicle, Gravity and Vehicle Movement
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Motor Vehicle Definition Liability for Stationary Vehicle Gravity and Vehicle Movement

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nekokwane Ndishavhelafhi Thomas

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund is liable for injuries caused by the falling of a stationary TLB's front loading bucket under section 17(1) and section 20(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether the movement of the TLB's bucket constitutes movement of a motor vehicle as a result of gravity for purposes of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's contradictory evidence affects the credibility and discharge of the onus.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the TLB was stationary at all material times and its tyres did not move from the parked position. The falling of the front loading bucket, although caused by gravity, did not constitute movement of the motor vehicle as required by section 20(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Act contemplates movement of the vehicle itself, not merely a component falling due to gravity. The plaintiff's evidence was contradictory and unreliable, with three different versions presented under oath. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the claim does not fall within the statutory liability of the Road Accident Fund and must be...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's case is dismissed with costs.