Road Accident Fund v Samela (151/2000) [2001] ZASCA 112; [2002] 2 All SA 158 (A); 2002 (1) SA 578 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

Road Accident Fund v Samela (151/2000) [2001] ZASCA 112; [2002] 2 All SA 158 (A); 2002 (1) SA 578 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not being conveyed 'for reward' as defined in article 46(a)(i) of the Schedule, because the payment of a reward rendered the conveyance illegal under section 31(1)(b) of the Road Transportation Act. However, the respondent was being conveyed in the course of the business of the owner, which was lawful, as the owner held a valid permit and operated the minibus for reward or in the course of business. The distinction between an illegal conveyance and an unlawful business was maintained, and the respondent's ignorance of the illegality was irrelevant. The respondent therefore fell under article 46(a)(ii) and was entitled to the broader...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 112
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Alfred Samela
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2001
Case Number
151/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The respondent was declared to have been conveyed in terms of Article 46(a) of the Schedule and is entitled to the broader compensation.
Judges
Vivier DCJ, Marais JA, Olivier JA, Cloete AJA, Brand AJA
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Public Road Carrier Permit, Illegal Conveyance, Compensation Limitation, Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Public Road Carrier Permit Illegal Conveyance Compensation Limitation Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Alfred Samela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was a passenger 'for reward' as contemplated by article 46(a)(i) of the Schedule to Act 93 of 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was being conveyed in the course of the business of the owner as contemplated by article 46(a)(ii) of the Schedule.
  3. 3 Whether the payment of a reward rendered the conveyance illegal under section 31(1)(b) of the Road Transportation Act 74 of 1977.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not being conveyed 'for reward' as defined in article 46(a)(i) of the Schedule, because the payment of a reward rendered the conveyance illegal under section 31(1)(b) of the Road Transportation Act. However, the respondent was being conveyed in the course of the business of the owner, which was lawful, as the owner held a valid permit and operated the minibus for reward or in the course of business. The distinction between an illegal conveyance and an unlawful business was maintained, and the respondent's ignorance of the illegality was irrelevant. The respondent therefore fell under article 46(a)(ii) and was entitled to the broader...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The respondent was declared to have been conveyed in terms of Article 46(a) of the Schedule and is entitled to the broader compensation.

Orders

  • It is declared that the plaintiff was being conveyed in the insured vehicle in terms of Article 46(a) of the Schedule to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act, 93 of 1989.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the determination set out in paragraph 1 above, which costs shall include the costs of the hearing on 24 February 2000.