Bezuidenhout v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured on 28 February 1999 when the vehicle in which he was travelling left the N1 highway. He alleged that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of an unidentified motor vehicle. The Road Accident Fund denied liability on the basis that there had been no physical contact between the appellant’s vehicle and the unidentified vehicle, as required by regulation 2(1)(d) promulgated under section 26 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The appellant contended that the regulation was ultra vires the Act.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with a declaratory order that regulation 2(1)(d) of the regulations issued under section 26(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is ultra vires. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs relating to the validity of the regulation.

This case is a leading authority on the limits of delegated legislative power in South African law. It confirms that the Minister may not, through regulations, impose substantive exclusions of liability that are inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Road Accident Fund Act. The judgment protects claimants in unidentified vehicle cases and reinforces the principle that social welfare legislation must be interpreted purposively in favour of those it is intended to benefit.