Road Accident Fund v Mbendera

The first respondent’s husband was killed in a collision between a taxi, in which he was a passenger, and a Caterpillar 769 haul truck driven by the second respondent in the course of his employment with the third respondent. The truck is a large off‑highway mining vehicle designed to operate on specially constructed haul roads. The first respondent instituted an action for damages against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and the other respondents. A separated issue was determined in the Pretoria High Court as to whether the truck constituted a ‘motor vehicle’ as defined in s 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The High Court held that it did, and the RAF appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The finding that the Caterpillar 769 truck is a motor vehicle for purposes of the Road Accident Fund Act was upheld.

The case clarifies the interpretation of ‘motor vehicle’ under the Road Accident Fund Act by confirming that a vehicle need not be suitable for ordinary public roads to fall within the Act. It affirms a practical, purposive approach that focuses on design and objective suitability for road use, thereby extending RAF protection to accidents occurring on private or specialised roads such as mining haul roads.