Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund (179/06) [2007] ZASCA 64; 2007 (6) SA 283 (SCA) (29 May 2007)

Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund (179/06) [2007] ZASCA 64; 2007 (6) SA 283 (SCA) (29 May 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the supplier's claim under section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act is accessory to the third party's claim and cannot prescribe independently. Since the third party's claim had not prescribed at the time the supplier submitted his claim, the supplier's claim could not have prescribed either. The court found that interpreting the Act otherwise would negate the supplier's statutory right to claim directly from the Fund. The appeal was upheld and the lower court's order was amended accordingly.

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 64
Parties
Appellant: Dr CJ Van der Merwe; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2007
Case Number
179/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Lewis, Heher, Cachalia, Hancke
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Prescription, Accessory Claims, Medical Expenses
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Prescription Accessory Claims Medical Expenses

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

Parties

Dr CJ Van der Merwe

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a supplier's claim under section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act can prescribe independently of the third party's claim.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's claim was prescribed when the third party's claim had not yet prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the supplier's claim under section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act is accessory to the third party's claim and cannot prescribe independently. Since the third party's claim had not prescribed at the time the supplier submitted his claim, the supplier's claim could not have prescribed either. The court found that interpreting the Act otherwise would negate the supplier's statutory right to claim directly from the Fund. The appeal was upheld and the lower court's order was amended accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is amended to read: 'The appeal is upheld with costs.'