Road Accident Fund v Hansa

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1 November 1994, while the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 (MMF Act) was in force. His claim was repudiated by the MMF in January 1997. After the MMF Act was repealed by the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (effective 1 May 1997), the respondent issued summons in 1998 against the MMF (not the RAF). Due to administrative failures, no notice of intention to defend was filed, and default judgment on liability was granted against the MMF. The RAF thereafter applied for rescission of the default judgment. The respondent objected, contending that the RAF lacked locus standi because the judgment was against the MMF. The High Court upheld this objection and dismissed the rescission application.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing in the court a quo. The application for rescission of the default judgment was remitted to the Transvaal Provincial Division for reconsideration de novo.

The case authoritatively clarifies that the Road Accident Fund is the statutory successor to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund and that the MMF did not survive as a separate juristic person after repeal. It is an important decision on statutory interpretation, particularly regarding savings clauses, and confirms the RAF’s standing in litigation relating to pre-1997 motor vehicle accident claims.