Strauss v Road Accident Fund (1157/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 96; 2006 (1) SA 70 (T) (23 September 2005)

Strauss v Road Accident Fund (1157/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 96; 2006 (1) SA 70 (T) (23 September 2005)

The court found that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to comply with Regulation 2(1)(c) by attempting to report the accident and submit the required affidavit to the police within the prescribed fourteen-day period. The evidence established that the police's refusal to accept the affidavit and their demand for additional documentation made it impossible for the plaintiff to comply strictly with the regulation. Applying the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held that impossibility caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control excuses non-compliance with statutory formalities. The defendant cannot rely on Regulation 2(1)(c) as a shield to defeat the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 96
Parties
Plaintiff: F J Strauss; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Case Number
1157/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea on Regulatory Compliance
Outcome
Defendant's special plea dismissed with costs; remaining issues postponed sine die.
Judges
E M Patel
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Regulation 2 1 C Compliance, Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia, Special Plea, Affidavit Submission, Procedural Impossibility
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Regulation 2 1 C Compliance Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia Special Plea Affidavit Submission Procedural Impossibility

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J Strauss

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea on Regulatory Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the plaintiff comply with Regulation 2(1)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act by submitting an affidavit to the police within the prescribed fourteen-day period after being in a position to do so?
  2. 2 Can impossibility caused by police conduct excuse non-compliance with a statutory time period under the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia?
  3. 3 Is the defendant entitled to rely on Regulation 2(1)(c) as a bar to the plaintiff's claim under the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to comply with Regulation 2(1)(c) by attempting to report the accident and submit the required affidavit to the police within the prescribed fourteen-day period. The evidence established that the police's refusal to accept the affidavit and their demand for additional documentation made it impossible for the plaintiff to comply strictly with the regulation. Applying the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the court held that impossibility caused by circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control excuses non-compliance with statutory formalities. The defendant cannot rely on Regulation 2(1)(c) as a shield to defeat the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea dismissed with costs; remaining issues postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea is dismissed with costs.
  • The remaining issues are postponed sine die.