[MEDIA SUMMARY] Road Accident Fund v Khathutshelo Gladys Masindi

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) raised a special plea of prescription in terms of section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 66 of 1956 as amended by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005, read with section 4 of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 and regulation 1 under the Road Accident Fund Act, in response to a claim for damages brought by the respondent. The Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (Mbongwe AJ) dismissed the special plea. The central issue was how to compute the five year prescription period where the last day of the period fell on a day when the court was closed, making it impossible to issue and serve summons on that day.

• How should the five year prescription period in section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act be computed when the last day of the five year period falls on a day when the court office is closed so that summons cannot be issued and served?
• Whether the prescription period should be strictly calculated or extended to the next working day when the last day falls on a day the court is closed

The appeal by the Road Accident Fund was dismissed. The decision of the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg dismissing the special plea of prescription was upheld.

Where the five year prescription period in section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 66 of 1956 (as amended) for bringing a claim ends on a day when the court office is closed, so that summons cannot be issued and served on that day, the five year period should be computed as ending on the next working day when the court is open. It would be unjust and impractical to hold that a prescription period expires on a day when it is impossible to perform the act required to interrupt prescription.

The court's endorsement and application of English authorities (Pritam Kaur, Mucelli v Government of Albania) suggests a broader principle that may apply to prescription and limitation periods in other contexts beyond the Road Accident Fund Act. The decision indicates judicial recognition that procedural rules must be interpreted in a manner that does not create impossible compliance requirements or defeat legitimate claims on purely technical grounds unrelated to the purpose of prescription periods.

This case establishes an important principle in South African law regarding the computation of prescription periods under the Road Accident Fund Act. It clarifies that strict literal interpretation of prescription periods must yield to practical considerations where compliance is impossible due to court closures. The decision provides certainty to claimants and aligns South African law with established English legal principles on limitation periods. It prevents claimants from being prejudiced by circumstances beyond their control (court closures) when they would otherwise be acting timeously. The case is significant for the interpretation of prescription provisions generally and demonstrates the courts' willingness to adopt a purposive approach to statutory interpretation that protects substantive rights.