Phillipa Susan van Zyl NO v The Road Accident Fund

Mr Koos Jacobs was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on 1 May 2010, suffering head injuries that rendered him of unsound mind and unable to manage his affairs. Despite this, no curator was appointed and no claim was lodged with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) within the statutory time periods prescribed by the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. A claim was only lodged on 18 January 2017, and a curatrix ad litem (the appellant) was appointed on 28 November 2017. The curatrix instituted action against the RAF in March 2018. The RAF raised a special plea that the claim had prescribed under s 23 of the RAF Act. The appellant argued that prescription was delayed by the application of ss 12(3) and 13(1)(a) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 due to Mr Jacobs’ mental incapacity.

The appeal was dismissed. The special plea of prescription was upheld. No order as to costs was made.

The case confirms that s 23 of the Road Accident Fund Act comprehensively and exclusively regulates prescription of RAF claims, excluding the application of the Prescription Act. It clarifies that protections for mentally incapacitated persons are limited to the specific categories listed in s 23(2) of the RAF Act, reinforcing the authority of the Constitutional Court’s decision in Mdeyide and rejecting attempts to revive broader protections under the Prescription Act.