Ramatsemela v Road Accident Fund (9483/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 553 (4 June 2024)

Ramatsemela v Road Accident Fund (9483/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 553 (4 June 2024)

The court held that the applicant's claim against the Road Accident Fund was instituted more than three years after the date of the accident, and she did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to prescription under section 23(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Prescription Act does not apply to suspend or interrupt prescription in this context, and ignorance of the law or lack of advice from the Road Accident Fund does not constitute a special circumstance to justify condonation. The applicant's reliance on Constitutional Court jurisprudence was misplaced, as her situation was distinguishable from cases involving mental incapacity or curatorship. Accordingly, the application...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 553
Parties
Applicant: Mosoma Ramatsemela; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2024
Case Number
9483/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Proceed After Alleged Prescription
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mnisi
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Prescription, Condonation, Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Prescription Condonation Access to Courts

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mosoma Ramatsemela

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation and Leave to Proceed After Alleged Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim against the Road Accident Fund can be condoned despite prescription under section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Prescription Act or common law principles can suspend or interrupt prescription in this context.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant qualifies under any statutory exceptions to prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's claim against the Road Accident Fund was instituted more than three years after the date of the accident, and she did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to prescription under section 23(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The Prescription Act does not apply to suspend or interrupt prescription in this context, and ignorance of the law or lack of advice from the Road Accident Fund does not constitute a special circumstance to justify condonation. The applicant's reliance on Constitutional Court jurisprudence was misplaced, as her situation was distinguishable from cases involving mental incapacity or curatorship. Accordingly, the application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

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