Road Accident Fund v Scholtz (111/2002) [2003] ZASCA 71; 2003 (5) SA 362 (SCA) (3 June 2003)

Road Accident Fund v Scholtz (111/2002) [2003] ZASCA 71; 2003 (5) SA 362 (SCA) (3 June 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the three-year and five-year prescription periods provided for in articles 55 and 57 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 are suspended during the minority of the claimant, as stipulated in article 56. The Court reasoned that the reference in article 56 to 'a claim for compensation referred to in article 55' qualifies the claim, not the prescription period, and that the legislative amendments were intended to avoid unnecessary repetition. The Court rejected the Fund's argument that article 57 is not subject to article 56, finding that the prescriptive periods must be read together and in conjunction with the suspension...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Rhesia Scholtz
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2003
Case Number
111/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Streicher, Navsa, Jones
Legal Topics
Prescription Periods, Road Accident Fund Act, Minority and Legal Capacity
Civil Procedure Prescription Periods Road Accident Fund Act Minority and Legal Capacity

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Rhesia Scholtz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the five-year prescription period in article 57 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 run against a minor?
  2. 2 Is the respondent's claim prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the three-year and five-year prescription periods provided for in articles 55 and 57 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 are suspended during the minority of the claimant, as stipulated in article 56. The Court reasoned that the reference in article 56 to 'a claim for compensation referred to in article 55' qualifies the claim, not the prescription period, and that the legislative amendments were intended to avoid unnecessary repetition. The Court rejected the Fund's argument that article 57 is not subject to article 56, finding that the prescriptive periods must be read together and in conjunction with the suspension...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.