Van Zyl N.O. v Road Accident Fund

Mr Koos Jacobs suffered severe head injuries in a motor vehicle accident in May 2010, rendering him mentally incapacitated and unable to manage his own affairs or lodge a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). No curator was appointed, nor was he detained under mental health legislation, within the three-year prescription period in section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. His mother lodged a claim with the RAF in January 2017. A curator ad litem, Ms Phillipa Susan van Zyl N.O., was appointed in November 2017 and instituted action in March 2018. The RAF raised a special plea of prescription. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the plea, holding that the claim had prescribed under section 23 of the RAF Act. The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal upheld. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the RAF’s special plea of prescription with costs. The RAF was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is significant for protecting the rights and dignity of mentally incapacitated road accident victims who fall outside the express categories in section 23(2) of the RAF Act. It clarifies that prescription under the RAF Act is subject to the common-law impossibility principle and that the law does not require incapacitated persons to do the impossible. The judgment advances access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution and ensures that vulnerable claimants are not unfairly barred from compensation due to circumstances beyond their control.