LPL4802
TAKE-HOME EXAM
SOLUTIONS
SEMESTER 2
0|Page
, DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
QUESTION ONE
(a) Critical Analysis of Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund's Legal
Argumentation Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund (437/2022) is the case at
hand. [2023]ZASCA (8 June 2023), the court's justification for excluding the
forklift from the definition of a motor vehicle for the purposes of pursuing
financial compensation from the Road Accident Fund was based on a careful
examination of the pertinent legal precedent and the Road Accident Fund Act
56 of 1996, as modified.
The court's ruling shows how carefully it interprets the law and defines what
constitutes a motor vehicle. When deciding whether or not to classify a forklift
as a motor vehicle, the court took into account its features and intended use. It
was mentioned that forklifts are primarily made to lift and move bulky things in
confined spaces, like a warehouse or construction site. Forklifts differ from
ordinary motor vehicles in that they are not intended for use on public roads
and lack equipment like indicators, lights, or license plates.
The court came to the conclusion that a forklift does not fit the definition of a
motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act based on these factors. The
court concluded that the plaintiff in Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund did
not meet the requirements to seek compensation from the Road Accident
Fund for injuries incurred in a forklift accident.
In conclusion, the Road Accident Fund Act's definition of a motor vehicle and
earlier case law served as the foundation for the court's decision to rule that
the forklift was not a motor vehicles for the purposes of recovering losses from
the Road Accident Fund. The court determined that a forklift cannot satisfy the
requirements of a motor vehicle after considering its features and intended
use.
1|Page
TAKE-HOME EXAM
SOLUTIONS
SEMESTER 2
0|Page
, DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
QUESTION ONE
(a) Critical Analysis of Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund's Legal
Argumentation Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund (437/2022) is the case at
hand. [2023]ZASCA (8 June 2023), the court's justification for excluding the
forklift from the definition of a motor vehicle for the purposes of pursuing
financial compensation from the Road Accident Fund was based on a careful
examination of the pertinent legal precedent and the Road Accident Fund Act
56 of 1996, as modified.
The court's ruling shows how carefully it interprets the law and defines what
constitutes a motor vehicle. When deciding whether or not to classify a forklift
as a motor vehicle, the court took into account its features and intended use. It
was mentioned that forklifts are primarily made to lift and move bulky things in
confined spaces, like a warehouse or construction site. Forklifts differ from
ordinary motor vehicles in that they are not intended for use on public roads
and lack equipment like indicators, lights, or license plates.
The court came to the conclusion that a forklift does not fit the definition of a
motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act based on these factors. The
court concluded that the plaintiff in Nemangwela v. Road Accident Fund did
not meet the requirements to seek compensation from the Road Accident
Fund for injuries incurred in a forklift accident.
In conclusion, the Road Accident Fund Act's definition of a motor vehicle and
earlier case law served as the foundation for the court's decision to rule that
the forklift was not a motor vehicles for the purposes of recovering losses from
the Road Accident Fund. The court determined that a forklift cannot satisfy the
requirements of a motor vehicle after considering its features and intended
use.
1|Page
