Road Accident Fund v Monjane (295/06) [2007] ZASCA 57; [2007] 4 All SA 987 (SCA) ; 2010 (3) SA 641 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 2516 (SCA) (18 May 2007)

Road Accident Fund v Monjane (295/06) [2007] ZASCA 57; [2007] 4 All SA 987 (SCA) ; 2010 (3) SA 641 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 2516 (SCA) (18 May 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 35(1) of COIDA precludes an employee from recovering damages from his employer for occupational injury, and section 19(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act excludes the Fund's liability for loss or damage for which neither the driver nor the owner would have been liable. The limitation in section 18(2) only applies where the wrongdoer is not the employer; if the wrongdoer is the employer, the claim is precluded regardless of whether the employee was being conveyed in or on the vehicle. The construction placed on these statutory provisions reflects legislative policy, and the respondent's claim against the Fund cannot succeed.

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 57
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Pedro Ernesto Monjane
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Case Number
295/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Special Plea on Statutory Exclusion of Liability
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea succeeds; respondent's claim against the Road Accident Fund is barred.
Judges
Scott, Cameron, Cloete, Maya, Theron
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Statutory Exclusion of Liability, Occupational Injury, Employer Liability
Civil Procedure Labour Law Road Accident Fund Act Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act Statutory Exclusion of Liability Occupational Injury Employer 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Pedro Ernesto Monjane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Special Plea on Statutory Exclusion of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by his employer can claim damages from the Road Accident Fund.
  2. 2 Whether section 19(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, read with section 35(1) of COIDA, precludes such a claim.
  3. 3 Whether the limitation in section 18(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act applies when the employee was not being conveyed in or on the vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 35(1) of COIDA precludes an employee from recovering damages from his employer for occupational injury, and section 19(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act excludes the Fund's liability for loss or damage for which neither the driver nor the owner would have been liable. The limitation in section 18(2) only applies where the wrongdoer is not the employer; if the wrongdoer is the employer, the claim is precluded regardless of whether the employee was being conveyed in or on the vehicle. The construction placed on these statutory provisions reflects legislative policy, and the respondent's claim against the Fund cannot succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea succeeds; respondent's claim against the Road Accident Fund is barred.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.