Road Accident Fund v Chipofya (22125/18) [2025] ZAWCHC 235 (2 June 2025)

Case Note

The Road Accident Fund v Charles Jeka Chipofya — [2023] ZAWCHC (02 June 2025) — 2025-06-02

Dates, Case No & Neutral Citation

2025-06-02; Case No 22125/18; The Road Accident Fund v Charles Jeka Chipofya (Case no 22125/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC (02 June 2025)

Court and Coram

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN; LEKHULENI J

Reportability

Reported

HEADNOTE

Summary

The respondent claimed damages against the Road Accident Fund arising from injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The matter was settled, and a draft order was by consent made an order of court. The applicant now seeks rescission of that order as it alleges that when the order was made, it was unaware that the respondent was an illegal immigrant. The court found these allegations to be misleading and demonstrably false. The application for rescission of judgment is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay costs of the application including the costs of counsel on scale B.

Held

The application for the rescission of judgment is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application including the costs of counsel on scale B.

Cases, Statutes and Texts Cited

Cases: AM and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (011795/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 309 (26 March 2024); Money Box Investments 268 (Pty) Ltd v Easy Greens Farming and Farm Produce CC (A221/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 599 (16 September 2021); Roopnarain v Kamalapathy 1971 (3) SA 387 (D); Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A); Moratis Inv (Pty) Ltd Montic Dairy (Pty) Ltd 2017 (5) SA 508 (SCA); De Wet and Others v Western Bank Ltd 1979 (2) SA 1031 (A); Georgias v Standard Chartered Finance Zimbabwe Ltd 2000 (1) SA 126 (ZS); Kaknis v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 2017 (4) SA 17 (SCA); S v Mhlungu and Others 1995 (3) SA 867 (CC)

Legislation: Immigration Act 18 of 2002; Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Rules of Court: Rule 34

THE FACTS

The respondent, a Malawian citizen, claimed damages from the Road Accident Fund for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The applicant initially defended the case but later settled, agreeing to pay R1,461,750. The applicant later sought rescission of the order, claiming it was unaware of the respondent's illegal immigration status.

THE ISSUES

Was the rescission application brought timeously? Did the applicant show good cause for rescinding the consent order? Is an undocumented foreign national eligible for compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act?

ANALYSIS

The court found that the applicant was aware of the respondent's illegal status at the time of settlement and that the application for rescission was not brought timeously. The court also held that the applicant's claims of justus error were misleading and false.

REMEDY

The application for rescission is dismissed, and the applicant is ordered to pay costs.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The principles of res judicata apply, and the court emphasized that the Road Accident Fund Act includes illegal immigrants as eligible for compensation.