Road Accident Fund v Thugwana (575/2002) [2003] ZASCA 139; [2004] 1 All SA 275 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 169 (SCA) (28 November 2003)

Road Accident Fund v Thugwana (575/2002) [2003] ZASCA 139; [2004] 1 All SA 275 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 169 (SCA) (28 November 2003)

Regulation 2(1)(c) under the Road Accident Fund Act is peremptory and not ultra vires. The regulation requires a claimant in a 'hit and run' case to submit an affidavit to the police within 14 days after being in a position to do so, unless it was not reasonably possible. The respondent was in a position to submit the affidavit while in hospital or at the latest in February 1999, but only submitted an affidavit to the police in August 2002. Earlier affidavits were either not submitted to the police or not sworn at a police station. The regulation does not require subjective knowledge of its provisions by the claimant; its purpose is to reduce fraud and facilitate proof. Non-compliance...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Samuel Feli Thugwana
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2003
Case Number
575/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo on a Special Plea Regarding Compliance With Regulation 2(1)(c) Under the Road Accident Fund Act.
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted.
Judges
Harms, Scott, Brand, Cloete, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Regulatory Compliance, Special Plea, Ultra Vires, Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Regulatory Compliance Special Plea Ultra Vires 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Samuel Feli Thugwana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo on a Special Plea Regarding Compliance With Regulation 2(1)(c) Under the Road Accident Fund Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning and effect of regulation 2(1)(c) under the Road Accident Fund Act regarding submission of an affidavit to the police in 'hit and run' cases.
  2. 2 Is regulation 2(1)(c) peremptory, and does non-compliance bar a claim?
  3. 3 Is regulation 2(1)(c) ultra vires the empowering statute?

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 2(1)(c) under the Road Accident Fund Act is peremptory and not ultra vires. The regulation requires a claimant in a 'hit and run' case to submit an affidavit to the police within 14 days after being in a position to do so, unless it was not reasonably possible. The respondent was in a position to submit the affidavit while in hospital or at the latest in February 1999, but only submitted an affidavit to the police in August 2002. Earlier affidavits were either not submitted to the police or not sworn at a police station. The regulation does not require subjective knowledge of its provisions by the claimant; its purpose is to reduce fraud and facilitate proof. Non-compliance...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The plaintiff is given leave to deliver an amendment to his replication to raise the provisions of s 24(5) of the Act in answer to the special plea within 15 days.
  • If the amendment is not delivered timeously or within such further period as the Court might allow on good cause shown, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.