The respondent, Mr Vusumzi Mdeyide, a blind, illiterate and indigent man with no concept of time or space, was struck by a motor vehicle on 8 March 1999 and sustained serious head injuries. He was hospitalised and allegedly suffered cognitive impairment thereafter. Approximately six months later, with the assistance of his wife, he consulted attorneys to pursue a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Due to his personal circumstances, his wife’s subsequent disappearance, and communication difficulties, his attorneys only lodged a claim with the RAF slightly more than three years after the accident. The RAF raised prescription under section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The High Court found that section 23(1), which imposes an absolute three-year prescription period without regard to a claimant’s knowledge or capacity, was unconstitutional and referred the declaration of invalidity to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.
The declaration of constitutional invalidity made by the High Court was not confirmed and was set aside. Section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act was upheld as constitutionally valid. The plaintiff’s claim remained prescribed.
This case affirms the constitutionality of the strict prescription regime under the Road Accident Fund Act and underscores the importance of procedural fairness when legislation is challenged. It reinforces the requirement that the responsible Minister must be joined in constitutional litigation and clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in legislative policy choices concerning prescription.