Stranack v Road Accident Fund (2013/44438) [2017] ZAGPJHC 475 (3 November 2017)

Stranack v Road Accident Fund (2013/44438) [2017] ZAGPJHC 475 (3 November 2017)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for general damages did not prescribe due to the late submission of the RAF 4 form. The original summons, issued within five years of the cause of action, interrupted prescription for all heads of damages, including general damages. The RAF 4 form, although procured and submitted by the defendant more than seven years after the accident, was uncontested and confirmed the plaintiff's serious injury. The court relied on the SCA's decision in Manukha v Road Accident Fund, which clarified that the late submission of the RAF 4 form does not result in prescription if the claim itself was instituted within the statutory period. The court found that the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 475
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen William Stranack; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2017
Case Number
2013/44438
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea and Quantum Determination
Outcome
The special plea of prescription is dismissed. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff general damages.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Prescription, General Damages, Serious Injury Assessment, Raf 4 Form, Quantification of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Prescription General Damages Serious Injury Assessment Raf 4 Form Quantification of Damages

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen William Stranack

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea and Quantum Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for general damages has prescribed due to late submission of the RAF 4 form.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing of the RAF 4 form affects the plaintiff's entitlement to general damages.
  3. 3 How general damages should be quantified given the plaintiff's injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for general damages did not prescribe due to the late submission of the RAF 4 form. The original summons, issued within five years of the cause of action, interrupted prescription for all heads of damages, including general damages. The RAF 4 form, although procured and submitted by the defendant more than seven years after the accident, was uncontested and confirmed the plaintiff's serious injury. The court relied on the SCA's decision in Manukha v Road Accident Fund, which clarified that the late submission of the RAF 4 form does not result in prescription if the claim itself was instituted within the statutory period. The court found that the...

Court Disposition

The special plea of prescription is dismissed. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff general damages.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed with costs.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R600,000 in respect of general damages within 14 days of this order.