Judgment reserved in RAF case
4 March 2010, 13:07
Judgment has been reserved in the High Court in Pretoria in the Law Society's constitutional challenge to controversial amendments to Road Accident Fund (RAF) legislation.
The Law Society of SA (LSSA), SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Quadpara Association of SA, National Council for Persons with Physical Disabilities and seven road accident victims are challenging the constitutionality and legality of the RAF Amendment Act and some of its regulations, which came into effect in August 2008.
The LSSA argued that the act unconstitutionally curtailed the rights of many thousands of accident victims and their dependants in the case of death.
The act not only severely limits claims against the fund, but also for the first time in South Africa's legal history stops victims from suing wrongdoers for damages not covered by the act.
The LSSA submitted in its founding papers that it was inexplicable and unjustifiable that, at the very time that the legislature had substantially reduced (and in some instances entirely removed) the right to statutory compensation, it also deprived injured parties of the right which they have always had to seek compensation from the wrongdoer.
The LSSA also attacked stipulations in the act that only persons who suffer "serious" injuries were entitled to claim general damages from the RAF.
It also criticised the limitation of claims for past and future loss of income or support to R160,000 per year and the limiting of claims for hospital and medical care to provincial hospital tariffs.
The minister of transport and RAF have opposed the application, saying there was no merit in any of the applicants' legal arguments and that the limitation of rights was justified in light of the RAF's serious financial crisis. - Sapa
The Law Society of SA (LSSA), SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Quadpara Association of SA, National Council for Persons with Physical Disabilities and seven road accident victims are challenging the constitutionality and legality of the RAF Amendment Act and some of its regulations, which came into effect in August 2008.
The LSSA argued that the act unconstitutionally curtailed the rights of many thousands of accident victims and their dependants in the case of death.
The act not only severely limits claims against the fund, but also for the first time in South Africa's legal history stops victims from suing wrongdoers for damages not covered by the act.
The LSSA submitted in its founding papers that it was inexplicable and unjustifiable that, at the very time that the legislature had substantially reduced (and in some instances entirely removed) the right to statutory compensation, it also deprived injured parties of the right which they have always had to seek compensation from the wrongdoer.
The LSSA also attacked stipulations in the act that only persons who suffer "serious" injuries were entitled to claim general damages from the RAF.
It also criticised the limitation of claims for past and future loss of income or support to R160,000 per year and the limiting of claims for hospital and medical care to provincial hospital tariffs.
The minister of transport and RAF have opposed the application, saying there was no merit in any of the applicants' legal arguments and that the limitation of rights was justified in light of the RAF's serious financial crisis. - Sapa
Pretoria
