Padongelukfonds (voorheen Multilaterale Motorvoertuig-ongelukkefonds) v Prinsloo

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 30 May 1991 on the N1 between Winburg and Ventersburg when his vehicle left the road and overturned. He alleged that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of an unidentified vehicle that suddenly swerved while he was overtaking it. He instituted an action against the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (MMF), later the Road Accident Fund. The trial court found physical contact between the vehicles and held the unidentified driver solely negligent. On appeal to the Full Court, it was found that there was no physical contact, that negligence was apportioned 75% to the unidentified driver and 25% to the respondent, and that regulation 3(1)(a)(v), which required physical contact for liability in unidentified vehicle claims, was ultra vires. The MMF appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal solely on the validity of the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. Regulation 3(1)(a)(v) was confirmed to be ultra vires and invalid.

This case is a leading authority on the limits of delegated legislative power in South African law. It confirms that regulations may not restrict or contradict rights and liabilities created by an empowering statute or incorporated agreement. The decision is particularly important in Road Accident Fund jurisprudence, as it invalidated a regulatory physical contact requirement for unidentified vehicle claims under the 1989 legislative scheme.