About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 265
|
|
Jeje v Road Accident Fund (4628/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 265 (27 August 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable
/
Not
reportable
Case
number: 4628/2023
In
the matter between
LINDELANI
JEJE
PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
Coram:
Loubser J
Heard:
5 June 2024
Delivered:
2
7
August 2024
Summary:
Substantially compliant claim against Road
Accident Fund – meaning of
ORDER
1.
The defendant’s special plea is
dismissed.
2.
The costs of the preparation and appearance
in respect of the special plea shall be costs in the cause.
JUDGMENT
LOUBSER
J
[1]
In this action against the Road Accident
Fund, it is alleged in the summons that the plaintiff sustained
serious injuries when he
was hit by a motor vehicle on 20 May 2021
while walking on the side of the road. It is further alleged in the
summons that the
accident occurred at or near Bloemspruit in the area
of Bloemfontein, and that it was caused by the sole negligence of the
insured
driver.
[2]
The plaintiff suffered orthopaedic injuries
to his back and head, as well as neurological injuries. As a result
of these injuries,
it is alleged that he is unable to walk or stand
anymore, that he cannot carry heavy objects anymore, that he is
having constant
headaches, and that he has become forgetful.
[3]
The defendant opposed the action and a plea
incorporating a special plea was subsequently filed by the defendant.
The parties then
came to an agreement that the special plea should be
adjudicated first. The Court then proceeded to hear submissions on
the special
plea only, and this is the Court’s judgment on the
said special plea.
[4]
The
defendant alleged in its special plea that the plaintiff has failed
to lodge a substantially compliant claim in terms of section
24 of
the Road Accident Fund Act.
[1]
In this respect, reference is made in the special plea to section
24(1)(
a
)
of the Act, which provides that a claim for compensation and
accompanying medical report under section17(1) shall be set out in
the prescribed form, which shall be completed in all its particulars.
Section 24(4)(
a
)
is also mentioned, which provides that “any form referred to in
this section which is not completed in all its particulars
shall not
be acceptable as a claim under this Act”.
[5]
Lastly, section 24(4)(
d
)
of the Act is referred to. This sub-section provides that precise
details shall be given in respect of each item under the heading
‘Compensation Claimed’ and shall, where applicable, be
accompanied by supporting vouchers. The defendant then pleaded
that
the damages claimed for general damages, loss of earnings and future
medical expenses were not accompanied by the required
supporting
vouchers or documents, and that no employer’s certificates and
proof of earnings were attached.
[6]
For these reasons, it was submitted on
behalf of the defendant that the special plea should be upheld and
that the plaintiff’s
claim be dismissed with costs.
[7]
The salient background facts of the matter
are the following: The plaintiff lodged his claim for compensation
with the defendant
on 16 March 2023 by means of the prescribed form
RAF1. This claim was accompanied by a copy of the plaintiff's
identification document,
a consent form, a special power of attorney,
a section 19 affidavit, medical records, a hospital record and an
accident report.
It needs mentioning here that the section 19
affidavit is one in which particulars of the accident that gave rise
to the claim
concerned, are fully set out.
[8]
Pursuant to the receipt of these documents,
the defendant filed a letter of objection against the plaintiff’s
claim in terms
of the provisions of section24(5). This section
provides that if the Fund does not, within 60 days from receipt of
the claim, object
to the validity thereof, the claim shall be deemed
to be valid in law in all respects.
[9]
In the letter of objection, it is pointed
out,
inter alia
that the amounts claimed under the different headings are not
indicated in the form, that the plaintiff’s tax records or
bank
statements are not included, that all hospital and medical records
are not submitted and that all itemised tax invoices from
medical
providers or hospitals relating to past medical expenses are absent,
to name a few.
[10]
Now our courts have already dealt with the
issue of the Road Accident Fund claim form and its requisites before.
An overview of
the more recent decisions in this regard, shows that a
number of basic principles are applicable when a court has to decide
whether
the claim form represents a compliant claim in terms of
section 24 of the Act.
[11]
One
of the first observations gleaned from these decisions, is that the
requirements relating to the submission of the claim form
is
peremptory, while the prescribed requirements concerning the
completeness of the form are directory, meaning that substantial
compliance with such requirements suffices. The test for substantial
compliance is an objective one.
[2]
[12]
In
Road Accident Fund v Busuku
[3]
it was stated that the Act constitutes social legislation and its
primary concern is to give the greatest possible protection to
persons who have suffered loss through negligence or through unlawful
acts on the part of the driver or owner of a motor vehicle.
For this
reason, the provisions of the Act must be interpreted as extensively
as possible in favour of third parties in order to
afford them the
widest possible protection.
[13]
In
the Busuku-judgment
[4]
the court
further held that the RAF1 form does not call for detailed
information. It is not intended, of itself, to enable the
Fund to
assess the quantum of the plaintiff's claim. It seeks to enable it to
investigate the impact of the injuries sustained.
In order to do so,
the RAF1 form requires the disclosure of information to guide and
facilitate the investigation. The court also
stated the following:
“
In
the context of the Act the purpose of the early submission of the
claim form is to enable the Fund to investigate the merits
of a
plaintiff’s claim in order to consider its approach to the
pending litigation before costs are incurred.”
[5]
[14]
In
Pretorius v Road Accident Fund
[6]
the court held that a court of first
instance
is required to enquire whether, as a fact, the
Road
Accident Fund
has been prejudiced by the omission of information in the RAF1 form,
in the sense of being denied information it properly requires
to
assess whether it is at risk of liability.
[15]
Having
regard to these principles and to the documents placed before this
court, I am of the view that the documentation accompanying
the RAF1
form was adequate to fulfil the needs of an enquiry into the merits
of the plaintiff’s claim, so that it could consider
its
approach to the pending litigation before costs are incurred. The
medical and hospital records, the section 19 affidavit and
the
accident report submitted together with the RAF1 form, constituted
sufficient information for the assessment of the plaintiff’s
claim on the merits thereof.
[16]
It
follows that the special plea raised by the defendant, stands to be
dismissed. As to costs, they ought to be costs in the cause
of the
trial when it is heard.
[17]
The following order is made:
1.
The defendant’s special plea is
dismissed.
2.
The costs of the preparation and appearance
in respect of the special plea shall be costs in the cause.
P.J. LOUBSER, J
For
the Plaintiff:
Adv.
E. E. Barlow
Instructed
by:
Mavuya
Attorneys Inc., Bloemfontein
For
the Defendant:
Ms.
M. Booysen
Instructed
by:
State
Attorney, Bloemfontein
[1]
Act
56 of 1996
[2]
Pithey
v Road Accident Fund
2014 (4) SA 112
(SCA) at para 19
[3]
2023
(4) SA 507
(SCA) para [6]
[4]
Ibid
para 16
[5]
Para
15
[6]
[2019]
ZAGP JHC 293 at para [11]