Nemangwela v Road Accident Fund

On 4 November 2016, Ms Ndidzulafhi Nemangwela was injured at her workplace at Nzhelele Spar in Limpopo when a Hyster 250 forklift reversed into her at the receiving bay and drove over her leg. The forklift was operated by a co-employee and was used for loading and offloading goods within the Spar premises. Ms Nemangwela instituted a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The RAF conceded negligence on an 80/20 basis in her favour, subject to a determination that the forklift qualified as a ‘motor vehicle’ under the Act. The High Court held that the forklift was not a motor vehicle as defined and dismissed the claim, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

This judgment reaffirms and consolidates South African jurisprudence on the interpretation of ‘motor vehicle’ under the Road Accident Fund Act. It confirms that forklifts used primarily in private industrial or commercial premises do not fall within RAF cover, emphasizing objective design and primary purpose rather than incidental capability or features. The case provides further clarity on the distinction between industrial machinery and road-going vehicles for RAF liability.