South Africa Case Law

Strydom v Road Accident Fund (1444/2023)

Strydom v Road Accident Fund (1444/2023) [2024] ZAMPMHC 62 (19 November 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1444/2023

Judge

Langa

The court found that the Hangcha 5t Series Forklift Truck does not qualify as a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act. Although the forklift is propelled by a diesel engine and was operated in a public parking area, the evidence did not establish that it was designed or adapted for general road use. The operation manual and witness statements failed to demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements for road vehicles. The manual's references to specific work surfaces and warnings about instability and braking confirmed that the forklift is intended for material handling in control…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Personal Injury
• Public Road Incident

Darvel v Road Accident Fund (12070/2020)

Darvel v Road Accident Fund (12070/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 433 (1 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12070/2020

Judge

Nuku

The High Court held that a Toyota 8FD25 forklift was not a “motor vehicle” under the RAF Act, so the plaintiff’s claim against the Road Accident Fund failed.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Liability For Road Accidents
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road-accident-fund-act
• Motor-vehicle-definition

Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022)

Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund (437/2022) [2023] ZASCA 90; 2024 (2) SA 316 (SCA) (8 June 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

437/2022

Judges

Mocumie, Molefe, Nhlangulela, Daffue, Masipa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Hyster 250 forklift does not qualify as a 'motor vehicle' under section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The court found that the forklift was designed primarily for loading and offloading goods within the private premises of the Spar store and was not intended for propulsion or haulage on a road. The evidence showed that its use on a public road was incidental and not its primary purpose. The court distinguished this case from Mbele, noting that the Reach Stacker in that matter was designed for use on roads in the harbor, whereas the Hyste…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Statutory Interpretation
• Damages For Personal Injury

Road Accident Fund v Mbele (555/19)

Road Accident Fund v Mbele (555/19) [2020] ZASCA 72; 2020 (6) SA 118 (SCA) (22 June 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

555/19

Judges

Maya P, Zondi JA, Plasket JA, Nicholls JA, Eksteen AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a Reach Stacker is a motor vehicle under the RAF Act, so the respondent’s claim for loss of support could proceed.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Loss Of Support
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road-accident-fund-act
• Motor-vehicle-definition

Mbele v Road Accident Fund (A237/18)

Mbele v Road Accident Fund (A237/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 5; 2019 (4) SA 65 (WCC) (1 February 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A237/18

Judges

A. le Grange, P. A. L. Gamble, F. S. G. Sievers

The court held that the Reach Stacker, by virtue of its design, features, and ordinary use, was intended to be propelled on roads within the harbour, including public and demarcated roads. The evidence established that its daily operation required movement along such roads, and its design included all necessary features for safe road travel. The fact that it required escort on public roads due to its size did not detract from its intended road use. The court distinguished the present case from Day, noting that the Reach Stacker's primary function involved regular road travel, unlike the forkl…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Loss Of Support
• Statutory Interpretation

Riet obo Riet v Road Accident Fund (RAF285/2016)

Riet obo Riet v Road Accident Fund (RAF285/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 51 (29 June 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

RAF285/2016

Judge

R D Hendricks

The High Court held that a donkey cart is not a motor vehicle under the RAF Act and found the plaintiff 10% contributorily negligent, reducing liability to 90%.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Contributory Negligence
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Road-accident-fund
• Motor-vehicle-definition

Jeffrey v Road Accident Fund (2008/5396)

Jeffrey v Road Accident Fund (2008/5396) [2012] ZAGPJHC 259; 2012 (4) SA 475 (GSJ) (15 February 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2008/5396

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

The court found that the quad motorcycle described by the plaintiff possessed the essential features of a motor vehicle as defined in section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act. Expert evidence confirmed that quad motorcycles, while primarily designed for off-road use, are often used on roads and can be adapted for road use with minor modifications. The plaintiff's evidence was credible and uncontroverted, and the defendant failed to rebut the prima facie case. The court held that it would be unjust to require exhaustive technical proof from the plaintiff. Applying a common sense approach and th…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Onus Of Proof
• Balance Of Probabilities

Berry and Another v SPE Security Patrol Experts and Another (2011 (4) SA 520 (GNP))

Berry and Another v SPE Security Patrol Experts and Another (2011 (4) SA 520 (GNP)) [2010] ZAGPPHC 260; 3211/10 (6 August 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3211/10

Judge

Goodey

The court held that a petrol-driven shuttle used at a hospital was a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act and upheld the first defendant’s special plea.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Special Plea
• Liability For Injuries
• Objective Test
• Public Policy

Bell v Road Accident Fund (121/06)

Bell v Road Accident Fund (121/06) [2007] ZASCA 83; [2007] SCA 83 (RSA) 2007 (6) SA 48 (SCA) (1 June 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

121/06

Judges

Streicher, Cameron, Jafta, Snyders, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the flatbed transporter in question was designed for propulsion on a road, specifically within the airport's operational area, which features a road system with traffic controls and is used by various vehicles and pedestrians. The court rejected the respondent's argument that 'road' in the statutory definition should be limited to 'public road', finding instead that the legislature intended 'road' to have its ordinary meaning. The court adopted the reasoning in Road Accident Fund v Mbendera, confirming that the relevant legislation applies to vehicles use…

Source excerpt

• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Road Accident Fund Liability

Road Accident Fund v Van Den Berg (19/2005)

Road Accident Fund v Van Den Berg (19/2005) [2005] ZASCA 104; 2006 (2) SA 250 (SCA) (16 November 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

19/05

Judges

Scott, Streicher, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Hamm GRW 18 pneumatic tyre roller qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The court found that the definition requires an objective assessment of the vehicle's design and general use. Expert evidence established that the PTR is regularly used to travel on public roads between construction sites and is equipped with features necessary for safe road use. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the PTR's speed, tyres, and centre of gravity rendered it inherently dangerous, noting that these factor…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Definition Of Motor Vehicle
• Objective Design Test