'RAF can't be held liable due to ubuntu'

File image

File image

Published Sep 30, 2016

Share

Pretoria - Caring for each other in the spirit of “ubuntu” has its limits and cannot be stretched to holding a third party, such as the Road Accident Fund (RAF), liable for the maintenance of someone who simply relied on the promise of another to always take care of them.

This was the message from the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, who turned down a claim by Nelid Heyns, whose brother died in a car accident.

Heyns said her brother promised to support her and her child for life as she had taken care of him while he was at school. When he was killed she turned to the RAF for this support.

But Judge Francis Legodi said the fact that the brother (no name given) cared for his sister, proved nothing. “Caring for each other among siblings alone cannot constitute a binding contract with legal consequences,” the judge said.

“Modern conditions of life should not be allowed to erode what is seen in many African communities as a socio co-existence among people of the same way of life. Entrenched moral systems in many African and impoverished communities is to help one another without imposing any obligation in return.”

Judge Legodi said this way of life was consistent with the Constitution as it developed, and encouraged unwritten African and underprivileged people’s way of living together, in the spirit of holding each others' hands and picking up those who stumbled on the journey of life.

In this case, Heyns and later, after she fell pregnant, her child, stayed with her brother who promised never to leave them out in the cold. This was a “contract” between them and not enforceable against the RAF, the judge said.

“Because of apartheid laws, many communities have found themselves at the receiving end of poverty. They rallied around each other and reined in ubuntu, which became a guiding light and cultural practice for many communities.”

The judge commented that a sense of giving, especially among siblings, in many cases meant taking each other through schooling. “This was done without expecting anything in return.”

Judge Legodi said his court, and that of leagues, were beneficiaries of such giving and generosity. It continued to be a practice in many communities and kept alive the “ubuntu” principle. But, he warned, one needed to be careful not to allow the “ubuntu” principles “which built us as a nation”, to be eroded by modern conditions and abuse.

The judge found that in this case, the brother simply gave his sister his word that he would look after her until death. But this couldn't be extended to include the RAF to maintain her by way of the public purse.

Related Topics: