PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

Faculty of Law

Department of Private

Law

PLP ASSIGNMENT

BY: KAGISO HLONGWANE

STUDENT NUMBER: 4106405
SUBMISSION DATE: 15 May 2024

1
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

Plaigarism declaration

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

Students are required to complete this Declaration and include it after the Cover
Page of every assignment, essay and take-home test submitted for credit in the Law
Faculty.
An assignment, essay or take–home test submitted without a completed Declaration
will not be evaluated.
I hereby declare that: √ x
I have read and understood √
the relevant sections in the
Law Students’ Handbook
relating to plagiarism,
citation and referencing.

I understand what √
plagiarism means and that
it is the worst academic sin.
I have acknowledged all √
quotations which I have
used in my assignment,
essay, or take-home test.

I have acknowledged all the √

ideas of others which I have
used in my assignment,
essay, or take-home test.

I have acknowledged all my √

sources in accordance with
the referencing rules,
found in the Law Students’
Handbook.

I have included a √
bibliography of all my
sources.
I have not copied anyone √
else’s assignment, essay,
or take-home test. or any
part thereof.

2
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

I have not permitted anyone √

else to copy my
assignment, essay or take-
home test or any part
thereof.

I have therefore not

plagiarised.

Surname: Hlongwane
First Names(s): Kagiso
Student Number: 4106405
Signature: K. Hlongwane

Date: 15 MAY 2024

Road Accident Fund (hereon, RAF/Fund) is the legal entity that is there to render appropriate
coverage directly to all road users within South Africa’s borders. The coverage falls into two

3
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

main areas of operation, namely indemnity insurance afforded to culpable persons for persons
they have injured in a motor car accident and personal insurance for the victims themselves
and their families.1 As provided under section 3, RAF rehabilitates and compensates, in a
manner that is just, equitable, speedy, and compassionate, people injured due to motor car
accidents.2 All users of South African roads, both residents and foreigners, are entitled to
comprehensive protection from injury or death as a result of a motor car accident in South
Africa’s borders. RAF proactively promotes the responsible usage of South African roads.
This note is set to discuss whether there are any possible claims that Peter, John, and Tony
may have.

To answer the above question, the following legislation is of significant importance; Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (Old Act). The RAF will take the place of the perpetrator
under common law.3 This implies that after the accident, one will not have a claim against the
perpetrator, but rather against the fund. The relevance of section 17 (1)(b), provides that the
“Fund shall indemnify any third party in respect of the injury or death of such third party
himself resulting from bodily injury sustained by himself, the death of any other person
resulting from the bodily injury to such other person or bodily injury to any other person so
sustained: or arising out of the driving of the motor vehicle concerned by a person driving the
said motor vehicle if such accident occurred at any place within the Republic”.4 However,
injury or death occurs due to the negligence of the driver or other wrongful conduct of the
owner of the vehicle or the duties of his employee.

Section 21 of The Old Act

Section 21 of the Old Act authorizes the following: When a third party complies with the
provisions of S17, no action for compensation for any loss or damages suffered by that party
may be brought against the owner or driver of the motor vehicle, other than for the payment
of the normal excess amount, but for the RAF, unless the fund is unable to pay.5 In addition,
when Peter and John have met all of the conditions of S27, they cannot sue the common law
perpetrator, but only the RAF, therefore, Peter and John may not institute a claim against
Tony who is a common law wrongdoer, but may, however, institute claims against the fund.

1
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
2
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
3
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
4
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
5
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

4
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

Conveyed Passengers

The RAF’s liability is limited for a particular passenger. Depending on the category in which
the specific passenger falls, the amount recoverable, and the damages sought to be
indemnified for certain specified categories of passengers or the dependents of the
passengers, in case of the passenger’s death is limited.6 The limitation will only be applicable
where the passenger’s injury or death is due to the driver of the vehicle in which they were
conveyed being fully negligent. The RAF is responsible for covering both general and special
damages, but there are some limitations. When it comes to special damages, there's a
predetermined limit on how much the RAF will cover for a claim made by all passengers,
including their friends.7 However, for these claimants, they won't be able to seek
compensation for general damages. Thus, Peter and John’s claim will fall under the ordinary
passenger, as it does not form part of the other categories. In the case of Aetra Insurance Co
Ltd v Minister of Justice8, the court held that the Act's expanded meaning, according to how
it's interpreted, applies to when you enter or get into a vehicle with the purpose of being taken
somewhere, as well as when you get out of the vehicle after being transported.9 The regular
meaning refers to being carried for transportation purposes. Once we confirm that someone
has been transported, we check if Section 18 is relevant.

Section 18: Liability of RAF Limited in Respect of Certain Passengers.

Section 18 is only applicable to the Old Act and has been deleted from the New Act.
The passengers have rights against the RAF like any other third party. It focuses only
on certain passengers.10 Section 18 is restricted to passenger claims, provided that
there can be no fault in driving of another motor vehicle.11 If Peter Jones and John
cannot prove the negligence of another motorist, their claim will be covered under
S18. Furthermore, if Peter and John as ordinary passengers can demonstrate even 1%
of another driver's negligence, their claim will fall outside of Section 18. Tony as the
driver of the motor vehicle that transported Peter and John was completely
responsible (100%) for the accident; thus, they cannot show that 1%. This suggests
that their claim is within the scope of S18. Claims under S18 are confined to the
RAF. The claim will be restricted in the sense that the RAF will pay a maximum of
6
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
7
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
8
Aetra Insurance Co Ltd v Minister of Justice
9
Aetra Insurance Co Ltd v Minister of Justice
10
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
11
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

5
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

R25,000.12 The fund concentrates on two types of claims, they are general damages
and special damages. However, in the Mvumvu & Others v Minister of Transport &
Another13, the court declared that sections 18(1)(a)(i) and 18(1)(b) of the Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as they stood prior to 1 August 2008, were
inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. It also declared that section 18(2) of
the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as it stood prior to 1 August 2008, was
inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. Such declarations of invalidity will
apply to and govern all claims instituted or to be instituted under the Road Accident
Fund Act 56 of 1996, which at the date of this order: (a) have not prescribed; and (b)
have not been finally determined by judgments at first instance or on appeal; and (c)
have not been finally determined by settlement duly concluded. It further held that all
such claims referred to above shall qualify for no greater compensation than that
which would accrue under the provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment
Act, 19 of 2005, as it stood on 1 August 2008.14 Therefore, John can claim whatever
amount he can prove for special damages, no than that which would accrue under the
provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, 19 of 2005.

Prescription
There is a distinct prescription approach for RAF claims. Because we are dealing with a non-
fatal injury, the prescription will begin from the day of the accident.15 Our primary emphasis
will be on the identified motor vehicle, against which Peter and John must file a claim within
three years of the collision. The first prescription time, which is three years, is for filing a
claim, and the second prescription period, which is five years, is for finalizing claims against
the RAF.16 Peter and John, on the other hand, can suspend the prescription for the first three
years by filing a claim, and then for the next five years by issuing summons, however, Peter
does not have a claim as it has prescribed. Since John is now a major he is not, he has not
reached age 21, he may make a claim against the fund.

In conclusion, Peter and John will have a valid claim against the fund in respect of special
damages and Tony’s claim will not stand as he does satisfy the requirements of section 17 of
the Act.

12
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
13
Mvumvu & Others v Minister of Transport & Another (7490/2008)
14
Mvumvu & Others v Minister of Transport & Another (7490/2008)
15
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
16
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

6
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

21/30
Gift B

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Case Law
Mvumvu & Others v Minister of Transport & Another (7490/2008)

7
 PLP ASSIGNMENT 4106405

Aetra Insurance Co Ltd v Minister of Justice

Legislation
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996