michael's website
Email Michael
rss feed  

October 2017
November 2016
November 2015
April 2014
February 2014
August 2013
October 2012
August 2012
February 2012
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
February 2011
January 2011
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
3 year prescription in RAF matters unconstitutional?

In a recent judgment, which the Court itself referred to the Constitutional Court, the East London High Court held that Section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act is inconsistent with the Constitution.  This is the 3 year time period and the facts in this case are special - with the claimant being blind, just for starters.  The Fund initially offered to pay his claim, even though lodged late, if he were to prove he was blind.  That offer was not however carried through.  The case, which the Constitutional Court will hear shortly is Vusumzi Mdeyide vs Road Accident Fund.

The Judge in his summary says that Section 23(1) is inconsistent with the Constitution "in so far as it does not make provision for the knowledge of the debtor and of the facts from which the debt arises, infringes upon the the rights of the plaintiff of access to Courts....."

Posted by Michael de Broglio on Thursday 23-Nov-06

3 year prescription in RAF matters unconstitutional?


Post a Comment

* Your name:
* email:  (will not be published)
   Security Code:
*Security Code: Please type the above characters



Johannesburg Web Design South Africa