Authored By: Thandekile Khumalo
North West University
Court of quo- the court at first glance
RAF – Road Accident Fund
RAF Act (the Act) – Road accident Fund Act No. 56 of 1996
Third party – any person who was in any loss or damage suffered as a result of any bodily injury to himself or herself or the death of or any bodily injury to any other person, caused by or arising from the driving of a motor vehicle by any person at any place within the Republic, if the injury or death is due to the negligence· or other wrongful act of the driver or of the owner’ of the motor vehicle or of his or her employee in the performance of the employee’s duties as employee. [1]
The legal maxim ignorantia juris non excusat – the legal maxim that explains that ignorance of the law is not an excuse
Introduction
This is case of appeal which arises from the judgement that was passed by the court of quo seated before the Honourable Acting Judge Sapire on the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria bench. Where a claim for compensation lodged with the Road Accident Fund, a fund that is established in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (the Act)- this was pre its amendment in 2008, rendered the claim invalid by upholding the Respondents special plea raised on the fact the claim was not appropriately lodged for compensation in terms on the Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. This case highlights the importance of adhering to the guidelines and the consequences thereof of presuming that the other party will determine from the facts without being precise and intention when institution your claim.
Facts of the case.
On the 24th day of November 2004, the Appellant, Ms Johanna Christina Pithey, was involved in a motor vehicle accident where she was the driver of the motor vehicle she was travelling with. In her particulars of claim she alleged that on the day of the accident, as she was so travelling on the N12 national road between Westonaria and Alberton, when suddenly a collision happened between the motor vehicle she was so travelling with and the truck so driven by one, identified as Mr. M Ntshangase. She further alleged that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the second insured driver, who was so travelling in a blue minibus (taxi), however the driver was not identified by the Appellant. Having said that, the said unidentified driver was not directly involved in the collision.
In that effect the claim for compensation as per the Road Accident Fund Act will be instituted in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act which states as follows:
‘17. Liability of the Fund
- subject to any regulation made under section 26 in the case of a claim for compensation under this section arising from the driving of a motor vehicle where the identity of neither the owner nor the driver thereof has been established…’ [2]
The Appellant when lodging the claim with the RAF, she instituted her claim under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act which give effect to claim for compensation under this section when a collision arises from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle where the identity of the owner or the driver thereof has been established.
The RAF defended the matter and raised a special plea disputing liability to compensate the Appellant in this matter specifically. In their special plea they averred that the appellant failed to lodge a claim under the ‘unidentified driver’ section of their lodgement form as per a Section 17(1) requirement as it is evident from the facts that this claim was to be brought under this section, consequently to that the claim has prescribed since it was not lodged within the period of 2(two) years as a requirement in terms of regulation 2(3) of the Regulations as implemented in Section 26 of the Act. This was explicated in Mbatha v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund[3] where it was said it is of the interest of justice to have a much stricter requirements for unidentified vehicles cases. This was said to combat fraud in matters of this nature.
The Appellant made a statement in April 2005, alleging that it was a rainy day and the traffic light went caution as she was approaching it and there was minibus travelling from the eastern direction that turned to the northern direction without stopping at the traffic light. She then immediately applied the brakes and the vehicle swerved towards the left and rear ended the truck. In October 2005, another statement was made by the Appellant stating the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the driver of the blue taxi (minibus) in that he turned right at the crossing when he was not allowed to do so’.
When lodging the claim, the Appellant however filled in the form as in the claim was per Section 17(1)(b), providing the details of the negligent insured driver as the above mentioned Mr. M Ntshangase, the driver of the truck. In 2007 summons were issued, where the Appellant revert to her first statement that the accident was caused by the negligence of the unidentified driver of the blue minibus, relying on Section 17(1)(b) of the Act for Compensation. The Court of quo agreed with the special plea of the defendant and dismissed the claim with costs.
In her notice of appeal, she stated that despite the way her lodgement form is filled, they have complied with the substantial requirement of such notice, and the Respondent was provided with sufficient information to enable then to thoroughly investigate the matter.
Legal Issues
- Whether the claim for compensation lodged with the RAF is rendered invalid due to claim form conveying that the claim is under section 17(1)(a) of the Act while it is evident from the facts of the case that such claim should be brought under section 17(1)(b) of the Act.
- Whether the substantial compliance with the requirement of section 17 and 24 of the Act does not arise in this matter.
- Whether the claim form correctly indicated that the claim to be instituted by the Appellant
Arguments Presented
In her notice of appeal, she stated that despite the way her lodgement form is filled, they have complied with the substantial requirement of such notice, and the Respondent was provided with sufficient information to enable then to thoroughly investigate the matter[4] and they further argued that the completion of the claim form might have conveyed that she was claiming in terms of section 17(1)(a) where in fact her claim pertained to section 17(1)(b) does not make her claim illegitimate. In SA Eagle Co Ltd v Pretorius[5] it was held that the substantial requirement is objective. Further argued that the claim form is not to be read in isolation but together with the supporting documents. The Counsel for the Appellant further stated that should the fund adopted this style of assessing the claim, it was going to be clear to them that the Appellant in fact was pursuing a claim in terms of section 17(1)(a).
The Respondent supported the court of quo’s decision and argued that it had never been appraised in the statutory prescribed manner of the Plaintiffs intention to claim compensation for damages caused by an unidentified driver. The Fund argued that there was no lodgement of a claim undersection 17(1)(b) on behalf of the Appellant within the prescribed 2 (two) years as per the requirement of regulation 2(3) and as she advanced on the court of quo. The Counsel for the Respondent referred to the matter of Van Wyk v Geldenhuys and Joubert and another 2005,[6] where it was said that having regard to the fundamental difference between a claim under section 17(1)(a) and section 17(1)(b) the incorrect identification of the claim in the claim form had fatal consequences for the appellant in that no claim other than the one in respect of which claim form was lodged is enforceable.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court went on to observe that in completing the claim form the appellant provided the particulars of the truck and of its owner and driver at the time of the collision being those of the motor vehicle from the driving of which her claim for compensation arose. The Court also noted that the appellant completed the paragraph of the claim form relating to an unidentified vehicle with the words ‘not applicable’, the Respondent could not have been expected to make enquiries about a claim being under section 17(1)(b).
It then concluded that the claim form clearly conveyed to the Fund that the collision was caused by the driver of the truck whose particulars were provided as were the particulars of the owner and the truck.
Judgement and Ratio Decidendi
The court’s decision emphasized that the claim must be supported by the necessary documentation and not read in isolation however taking into account all the evidence and information presented to the Respondent.
Critical Analysis
This judgment does not purport to lay down any general rule but is decided on its own very specific facts. It is a fact the Appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and consequently suffered the damages thereof, however when lodging the claim, the requirement and regulations where not considered. The Appellant presented two contradictory version to the court. I agree with the order of the court of quo because ignorantia juris non excusat.
In my view, this order will open a flood gates of litigation as this judgment will be used as a point reference when the rules and regulations are not followed. The Appellant was supposed unfortunately to suffer the consequence of her own negligence and not taking the law into account.
Conclusion
The law is forever changing to accompdate era of times we are living in. New interpretation suffice to aid legal issues that have been lingering for decades. There can not be black and white area when legal issues are dealt with. As it is always being said, ‘it depends’
Bibliography
Legislation
- Road Accident Fund Act No. 56 of 1996, as amended, section 17
Case Law
- Mbatha V Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Funds 1997 (3) SA 713 (SCA)
- SA Eagle Insuarance Co Ltd v Pretorius 1998 (2) SA 656 (SCA) at 663D-E
- Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Radebe 1996 (2) SA 145 (A)
[1] The Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as amended
[2] Road Accident Fund Act 1996, as amended
[3] Mbatha V Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Funds 1997 (3) SA 713 (SCA)
[4] Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Radebe 1996 (2) SA 145 (A)
[5] SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Pretorius 1998 (2) SA 656 (SCA) at 663D-E
[6] Van Wyk v Geldenhuys and Joubert and another 2005 (2) SA 512 (SCA)
