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 310
|
|
Ranosi v Road Accident Fund (6056/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 310 (20 September 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable
/ Not reportable
Case
no:
6056/2023
In
the matter between:
HERMAANS
MOHLALEFI RANOSI
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
Plaintiff
Defendant
Neutral
citation: XXX
Coram:
Cronje AJ
Heard:
10 September 2024
Delivered:
20 September 2024
Summary
:
Vehicle accident - Road Accident Fund prescribed claim form –
Board Notice 2022 – special plea of non-compliance with
the
Board Notice read with section 24 of the Act - substantial compliance
- special plea dismissed.
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
Cronje
AJ
Introduction:
[1]
The plaintiff instituted action
against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) pursuant to a motor vehicle
accident that took place on 17
July 2022. He was a pedestrian. The
plaintiff alleged compliance with the relevant statutory requirements
and claims compensation
for future medical and related expenses,
general damages, past loss of income, and loss of earning capacity.
[2]
The
defendant raised a special plea alleging that s 24(4)
(a)
of the Road Accident Fund Act
56
of 1996 (the Act),
provides that
any form referred to in that section which is not completed in all
its particulars shall not be accepted as a claim
under the Act.
Precise details shall be given regarding each item under the hearing
‘
compensation claimed and
shall, where applicable, be accompanied by supporting vouchers
’.
[3]
A perusal of the claim form shows
that the details of the accident and the employment status were
provided. Dr Kocoma completed
the medical report. The accident report
and medical records were filed in the court file.
[4]
The
parties agreed that the special plea be adjudicated prior to the
matter proceeding on the merits, if at all. The plaintiff’s
argument is that there are numerous cases where the defendant's
special plea was dismissed. Mr Barlow, on behalf of the plaintiff,
refers to
Pithey
v Road Accident Fund
[1]
where
the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held:
‘
[19]
It has been held in a long line of cases that the requirement
relating to the submission of the claim form is peremptory and
that
the prescribed requirements concerning the completeness of the form
are directory, meaning that substantial compliance with
such
requirements suffices.
As
to the latter requirement this court in
SA
Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Pretorius
reiterated that the test for substantial
compliance is an objective one.
[20]
In
Multilateral
Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund v Radebe
[1995]
ZASCA 80
;
1996
(2) SA 145
(A) at 152E-I, Nestadt JA said:
“
It
is true that the object of the Act is to give the widest possible
protection to third parties. On the other hand the benefit
which the
claim form is designed to give the fund must be borne in mind
and given effect to. The information contained in
the claim form
allows for an assessment of its liability, including the possible
early investigation of the case. In addition,
it also promotes the
saving of the costs of litigation. . . . These various advantages are
important and should not be whittled
away. The resources, both in
respect of money and manpower, of agents and particularly of the fund
are obviously not unlimited.
They are not to be expected to
investigate claims which are inadequately advanced. There is no
warrant for casting on them the
additional burden of doing what the
regulations require should be done by the claimant. . . .”
Although
these remarks were made in a different context they articulate, in my
view, the purpose that the claim form is intended
to serve.’
(Footnotes omitted.)
[5]
In
Road
Accident Fund v Busuku
[2]
the
SCA held that the Act constitutes social legislation and that
claimants should be afforded the widest possible protection:
‘
In
considering the context in which the provisions appear and the
purpose to which they are directed it must be recognized 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. On the other hand, courts should be alive to the
fact that the Fund relies entirely on the
fiscus for its funding and
they should be astute to protect it against illegitimate or
fraudulent claims. In the current matter
there has, however, been no
suggestion of any illegitimate or fraudulent claim.’
[3]
(Footnotes
omitted.)
[6]
In
Pretorius
v Road Accident Fund
[4]
the court held that what is required is not formal mechanical
compliance but substantial compliance. This approach allows
practicalities
to govern the debate and a pragmatic stance to prevail.
[7]
He submits that there has been
substantive compliance and that there is no merit in the special
plea.
[8]
Ms Banda, appearing for the RAF,
refers to a letter (generally known as the objection letter) sent to
the attorneys of the plaintiff
dated 23 August 2023. The letter
states:
‘
To
administer claims effectively and efficiently, the Road Accident Fund
(RAF) pursuant to Section 4(1)(a) of the Road Accident
Fund Act, 1996
(“the Act”) published the stipulated terms and conditions
upon which claims for compensation shall be
administered (the “terms
and conditions”) in Board Notice. 271 of 2022 which was
published in Government Gazette no.
46322 on 6 May 2022. The terms
and conditions, read with Section 24 of the Act, stipulate what
documents must accompany the claim
documentation when submitting a
claim for compensation.’
[9]
The RAF objected to the claim's
validity, stating that medical reports or documentation establishing
or substantiating the disability
(medico-legal reports), an itemised
tax invoice of a medical practitioner or hospital for past medical
expenses, proof of payment
of medical costs and medico-legal reports
were outstanding. These are requirements emanating from the Board
Notice and the new
claim form. She submits that the status of the
Board Notice will be serving before the SCA and that it will be
premature to make
a finding in the matter before the SCA pronounces
itself.
Evaluation
[10]
In
Legal
Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road Accident
Fund and Others
[5]
the
full bench of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria made the
following order:
‘
.
. .
(iii)
Board Notice 271 of 2022 published in Government Gazette No 46322 of
6 May 2022 (‘the Board Notice’) is declared
unlawful and
is reviewed and set aside;
(iv)
Form RAF 1, prescribed by the Minister of Transport (‘the
Minister’) in terms of s 26 of the Road Accident Fund
Act 56 of
1996 (‘the RAF Act’), and published in Board Notice 302
of 2022 in Government Gazette No 46653 of 4 July
2022 (‘the RAF
1 Form’) is declared unlawful and is reviewed and set aside;
(v)
It is declared that Claimants whose claims were accepted by the
Second Respondent (‘the RAF’) to have been lodged
in
compliance with the Board Notice and/ or the RAF 1 Form are deemed to
have been lodged in terms of the RAF Act, and the RAF
will continue
to investigate and process these claims as lodged claims;
(vi)
From 6 May 2022, the prescribed form contemplated in s24 (1)(a) of
the RAF Act shall be deemed to be the RAF 1 third party
claim form
(‘the 2008 RAF 1 Form), forming part of the Regulations
published by the Minister on 7 July 2008 in Government
Gazette No
31249, until such time as the Minister prescribes an amendment to the
2008 RAF 1 Form in terms of s 26 of the RAF Act;
(vii)
Claimants who sought the lodgment of their claims in terms of the
Board Notice or the RAF 1 Form, but lodgment was declined
by the RAF
or was not acknowledged by the RAF , are afforded a period until 30
September 2024 to resubmit their claims to the RAF
in terms of the
2008 RAF 1 Form and those claimants who thereby secure lodgment will
enjoy the benefits of such lodgment as from
the date on which
lodgment was originally sought by them;
(viii)
The RAF will take all reasonable measures to inform Claimants
referenced in (v) and (vii) above of the contents of this order,
which measures shall include the publication of this order in at
least three newspapers circulated nationally, and, in addition,
the
RAF will take reasonable measures to inform the public of this order;
(ix)
The Minister is ordered to adopt and publish a revised RAF 1 Form
within 6 months hereof.’
[6]
[11]
It is against this order that the
RAF appeals to the SCA. Having considered the pleadings, the
documents filed, and
Legal
Practitioners Indemnity Insurance
,
I cannot conclude that there
needed to be more than substantial compliance with the requirements.
[12]
The plaintiff was a gardener at
the date of the accident and the medical records show that he was
treated in a public hospital.
The requisite tax invoice of a medical
practitioner and/or hospital would probably be non-existent.
Treatment in a public health
facility, furthermore, does not require
payments for medical expenses. Medico-legal reports may eventually
become available. However,
one has to be careful to burden victims of
accidents with requirements that do not materially impact the
investigation of a claim
where as much available as possible
information was provided.
[13]
I conclude that the special plea
cannot succeed and stands to be dismissed.
As
to costs, they ought to be costs in the cause of the trial when it is
heard.
ORDER
[14]
Therefore, I
make the following order:
3.
The
defendant’s special plea is dismissed.
4.
The costs of
the preparation and appearance in respect of the special plea shall
be costs in the cause.
CRONJÉ,
AJ
Appearances:
For
the plaintiff:
Adv
EE Barlow
Instructed
by:
Mavuya
Attorneys
Bloemfontein
Instructed
by:
For
the defendant:
Ms
P Banda
Office
of the State Attorney
Bloemfontein
[1]
Pithey
v Road Accident Fund
[2014]
ZASCA 55; 2014 (4) SA 112 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 324 (SCA).
[2]
Road
Accident Fund v Busuku
[2020]
ZASCA 158; 2023 (4) SA 507 (SCA).
[3]
Ibid para 6.
[4]
Pretorius
v Road Accident Fund
[2019]
ZAGPJHC 293.
[5]
Legal
Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road
Accident Fund and Others
[2024]
ZAGPPHC 294; 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP).
[6]
Ibid para 55.