The Constitutional Court did not rule that Section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund, which limits the period to lodge a claim to three years, was unconstitutional.

"This is incorrect and appears to refer to the minority judgment (three judges), as the authoritative judgment," said the department of transport spokesperson Logan Maistry.

"The majority judgment is, however the effective judgment of the Court and the overwhelming majority of the judges eight judges) ruled in favour of the RAF and the Minister of Transport."

Maistry said the court upheld the three-year prescription period in the RAF Act.

"The prescription periods contained in the Road Accident Fund Act therefore apply to all RAF claims."

In addition, it was found that the three-year limit contained in the RAF Act, during which the claim in question had to be lodged, was reasonable, justifiable and afforded the claimant an adequate and fair opportunity to seek redress in the courts and was therefore constitutional, he said.

This ruling was handed down in matter before court between the RAF and the transport minister, and Vusumzi Mdeyide.

On March 8, 2002, Mdeyide lodged a claim for damages after sustaining injuries in an accident on March 8, 1999. This was three years and three days after the accident.

Based on this, the RAF raised a "special plea of extinctive prescription" in terms of the Act.

The matter was brought before the high court, which raised the constitutionality of Section 23 (1) of the RAF Act.

The court invited submissions and subsequently declared the section of the Act to be an "unjustifiable limitation" on the right of access to court enshrined in Section 34 of the Constitution.

The matter was then referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation in 2007. At the same time the transport minister appealed against the order to the Constitutional Court.