(LPL4802) EXAMINATION ANSWERS
DUE DATE: 27 October 2023
ALL THE BEST & GIVE US A
REVIEW!!!
QUESTION 1
a. The court reasoned in Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund that the forklift
involved in the collision did not meet the requirements of a motor vehicle for the
purposes of requesting compensation from the Road Accident Fund. The
interpretation of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 as amended and pertinent
case law served as the foundation for the court's reasoning.
According to Section 1 of the Road Accident Fund Act, a "motor vehicle" is any
vehicle built or modified for use as a means of propulsion or transport on a road. The
court cited this definition. The court concluded that a forklift did not fit the definition of
a motor vehicle after considering its features and intended use. The forklift's primary
purpose was not driving or hauling on a road, but rather lifting and moving big goods
within a small space.
The court also considered earlier legal precedent, such as the case of Road Accident
Fund v. Mdeyide, which held that for a vehicle to qualify as a motor vehicle under the
Act, it must be designed or modified for use on a road. The court determined that the