News > Third Party & Personal Injury Claims
 On 25 November 2010, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in the Law Society of South Africa and 10 others’ constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act of 2005 (“Amendment Act”). |
||
|
||
 On 12 August 2010 the Constitutional Court heard the Law Society of South Africa’s appeal against the judgment and order of Fabricius AJ of the North Gauteng High Court, who on 31 March 2010 dismissed a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Road Accident Fund Act of 1996. Judgment was reserved by the Constitutional Court and on 25 November 2010, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment. |
||
|
||
|
In the recent matter of the Road Accident Fund versus Vusumzi Mdeyide, the Constitutional Court (“CC”) held that an appeal against a decision by the Eastern Cape High Court should be upheld and in doing so the CC held that the limitation contained in the RAF Act, to the effect that the right to claim compensation prescribes 3 years after the date upon which the cause of action arose, is reasonable and justifiable under the Constitution. |
||
|
||
 On 1 March 2010 application was made to the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria by the Law Society of South Africa and ten others (‘the Applicants”) challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005, which came into effect on 1 August 2008. The application was opposed by the Minister of Transport and the Road Accident Fund (“the Respondents”). Judgment was handed down by the then Acting Judge Fabricius on 31 March 2010, dismissing the application with no order as to costs. The Applicants then filed an application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, and this application was set down for hearing on 12 August 2010. The full bench of the Constitutional Court (except for Judge Joffe), not only heard argument by the respective parties relating to the application for leave to appeal, but the merits upon which the judgment in the court a quo was challenged. |
||
|
||
 The Honourable Fabricius AJ handed down judgement in the North Gauteng High court, Pretoria, on 31 March 2010. The noting of the judgement lasted only a few minutes with the judge in summary saying that the application was dismissed save for prayer 18 regulation 6(1) which must be read as meaning in addition to what is required by section 24(1)(b) and no order as to costs was given. The order pertaining to costs in effect means that each party has to bear their own costs in the application. |
||
|
||
 Judgment will be delivered at 10am on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. A court has not yet been allocated. |
||
|
||
 Adv HJ de Waal, acting on behalf of the Respondents, closed his argument, followed by Adv S Budlender who dealt with the Applicants’ attack on the following 5 points: the emergency medical tariff, the time period for lodgement of claims, the place of lodgement, the RAF forms, and the appropriate remedy. |
||
|
||
|
Adv Ncomisa Mayosi, acting for the Applicants started the proceedings by presenting to the court the legal principles applicable to “consultation” or “debate” that the Minister of Transport failed to adhere to before they imposed the UPFS tariff in respect of medical expenses. She indicated that the principles of consultation and debate can be summarised as general and adequate notice to interested parties, consultation with interested parties and a consideration of the suggestions and views of such interested parties. Counsel put to the court that these principles were not met and from this it may be deduced that the amendment was made in light of a pre-conceived scheme. Counsel took the court through the various meetings that were held by the RAF in anticipation of the imposition of the new tariffs and the arbitrary manner in which these new tariffs were decided upon. |
||
|
||
 On Monday 1 March 2010, the constitutional challenge to the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, commenced in the North Gauteng High Court, before Fabricius AJ. The proceedings started with applications by the Ministers of Health and Finance, to intervene in the main application. Both applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. |
||
|
||
 On 24 February 2010 and in the North Gauteng High Court, the Minister of Transport brought an Application for Postponement of the main Application between the parties, in which the Law Society of South Africa and ten others are challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act. The Minister of Transport cited two reasons why the court should grant a postponement of the main application which is set down for hearing for the period of 1 to 3 March 2010. |
||
|
||
 Acting Deputy Judge President WJ van der Merwe of the North Gauteng High Court today confirmed that the review application launched by the Law Society of South Africa and ten others, in which certain sections of the amended Road Accident Fund Act are challenged, will be heard from 1 to 3 March 2010. |
||
|
||
 Review application of the LSSA and 10 others / RAF and Minister of Transport could be heard as early as February 2010. The Applicants were left with no alternative but to approach the Deputy Judge President of the North Gauteng High Court for assistance. An urgent pre-hearing conference was convened by Deputy Judge Shongwe, and Acting Judge Sapire was requested to preside over the conference. The purpose of the conference was for Acting Judge Sapire to issue a directive on the dates for filing of the answering affidavits, replying affidavits, heads of argument and a date for the hearing of the application. |
||
|
||
 The history and status of the challenge by the Law Society of South Africa and seven others to the Road Accident Fund and the Minister of Transport are outlined here. |
||
|
||
|
On 30 September the Honourable Makgoga J granted permission to seven individuals to intervene and be joined as co-applicants in the application which was launched by the Law Society of South Africa and three others against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and the Minister of Transport. They are applying for certain sections of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act and its regulations to be declared unconstitutional and invalid. |
||
|
||
|
Current status of the review application in the matter between the LSSA and 3 others / RAF and Minister of Transport. (North Gauteng High Court Case nr 10654/09) 24 August 2009 On 21 August 2009 the Applicants served an amended Notice of Motion and supplementary affidavit on the Respondents, arising from the various records filed by the Respondents. The Notice of Motion was amended to include further grounds for declaring certain sections of the Road Accident Fund Act invalid. In terms of the Notice of Motion the Respondents will now have 30 (thirty) days (which will expire on 5 October 2009) to deliver any affidavits which they may desire in answer to the allegations made by the Applicants. The Applicants will then have until 19 October 2009 to reply thereto. Once all the affidavits have been filed, the Applicants will be in a position to apply for a date for the hearing of the review application. |
||
|
||
|
The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.
