Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another

The applicants, Anele Mvumvu, Louise Pedro and Bianca Smith, were seriously injured in separate motor vehicle accidents before 1 August 2008. Each qualified for compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, but their claims were capped at R25 000 by section 18 of the Act because they were fare-paying passengers, conveyed for reward, or employees entitled to COIDA benefits. As a result, they could recover only limited medical expenses and were excluded from claiming general damages, loss of income, or loss of earning capacity. Although section 18 was repealed by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005 with effect from 1 August 2008, transitional provisions required that claims arising before that date be determined under the old capped regime. The applicants challenged the constitutionality of section 18 as it applied to their claims.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the declaration that sections 18(1)(a)(i), 18(1)(b) and 18(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as they stood prior to 1 August 2008, were unconstitutional and invalid. The invalidity applied to all claims not yet prescribed or finally determined, but compensation for such claims was limited to the amounts payable under the post‑amendment regime introduced by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act.

This case is significant for confirming that facially neutral legislation may constitute unfair indirect discrimination where its practical effect disproportionately burdens historically disadvantaged groups. It strengthened equality jurisprudence under section 9 of the Constitution and clarified the constitutional limits on differentiated compensation schemes in social security legislation such as the Road Accident Fund framework.