Road Accident Fund v Abdool- Carrim and Others (293/07) [2008] ZASCA 18; [2008] 3 All SA 98 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 579 (SCA) (27 March 2008)

Road Accident Fund v Abdool- Carrim and Others (293/07) [2008] ZASCA 18; [2008] 3 All SA 98 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 579 (SCA) (27 March 2008)

Section 19(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 does not apply to agreements entered into by suppliers. The phrase 'subject mutatis mutandis to' in section 17(5) means that supplier claims are conditional upon the validity of the third party's claim, but does not render supplier claims unenforceable due to agreements with non-attorneys. The legislative intent is to protect third parties from exploitative agreements, not to restrict suppliers' contractual freedom. The Fund's refusal to process supplier claims based on section 19(d) was incorrect, and the agreements between suppliers and A-Fact are not invalidated by the Act.

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 18
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Abdool-Carrim ATO and Others; Respondent: Alexander Forbes Compensation Technologies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alexander Forbes Accident Compensation Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2008
Case Number
293/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Streicher, Navsa, Heher, Maya, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Third Party Claims, Statutory Interpretation, Accessory Claims
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Road Accident Fund Act Third Party Claims Statutory Interpretation Accessory Claims

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Abdool-Carrim ATO and Others

Respondent

Alexander Forbes Compensation Technologies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alexander Forbes Accident Compensation Technologies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 19(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 applies to agreements entered into by suppliers as well as third parties.
  2. 2 Whether the agreements between suppliers and A-Fact render the suppliers' claims unenforceable against the Fund under section 19(d).

Ratio Decidendi

Section 19(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 does not apply to agreements entered into by suppliers. The phrase 'subject mutatis mutandis to' in section 17(5) means that supplier claims are conditional upon the validity of the third party's claim, but does not render supplier claims unenforceable due to agreements with non-attorneys. The legislative intent is to protect third parties from exploitative agreements, not to restrict suppliers' contractual freedom. The Fund's refusal to process supplier claims based on section 19(d) was incorrect, and the agreements between suppliers and A-Fact are not invalidated by the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • In the case of the 1239th and 1240th respondents, such costs are to include the cost of two counsel.