Road Accident Fund v Mphirime (1036/2016) [2017] ZASCA 140 (2 October 2017)

Road Accident Fund v Mphirime (1036/2016) [2017] ZASCA 140 (2 October 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, due to the Constitutional Court's decision in Law Society of South Africa & others v Minister for Transport & another, the legal position regarding undertakings under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act remains as it was prior to 1 August 2008. At that time, the Fund was entitled to issue undertakings for the future costs of a domestic assistant. The amendment to the Act and the absence of a new tariff do not exclude domestic assistance from the scope of section 17(4)(a). The respondent is not entitled to insist on a lump sum payment, as the Fund has the statutory right to discharge its liability by furnishing an undertaking. The appeal...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 140
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Khomotso Polly Mphirime
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2017
Case Number
1036/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and substituted.
Judges
Leach, Tshiqi, Majiedt, Mathopo, Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Future Medical Expenses, Statutory Interpretation, Undertakings, Domestic Assistance
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Future Medical Expenses Statutory Interpretation Undertakings Domestic Assistance

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Khomotso Polly Mphirime

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund may discharge its liability for the costs of employing a domestic assistant by issuing an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to a lump sum payment for the cost of a domestic assistant or must accept an undertaking from the Fund.
  3. 3 Whether the amendment to the Road Accident Fund Act by Act 19 of 2005 excludes domestic assistance from the scope of section 17(4)(a) undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, due to the Constitutional Court's decision in Law Society of South Africa & others v Minister for Transport & another, the legal position regarding undertakings under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act remains as it was prior to 1 August 2008. At that time, the Fund was entitled to issue undertakings for the future costs of a domestic assistant. The amendment to the Act and the absence of a new tariff do not exclude domestic assistance from the scope of section 17(4)(a). The respondent is not entitled to insist on a lump sum payment, as the Fund has the statutory right to discharge its liability by furnishing an undertaking. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.
  • The order of the court a quo dated 25 February 2016 is set aside and substituted with: (a) It is declared that the cost of employment of a domestic assistant to the plaintiff is an expense that the defendant is entitled to pay in terms of an undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of...