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 372
|
|
Masilo v Road Accident Fund (5599/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 372 (22 November 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable / Not
reportable
Case
no:
5599/2023
In
the matter between
ITUMELENG
TERENCE MASILO
Plaintiff
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
Neutral
citation:
Itumeleng
Terence Masilo v Road Accident Fund (5599/2023)
Coram:
L MPAMA, AJ
Heard:
16 OCTOBER 2024
Delivered:
22
NOVEMBER 2024
ORDER
1.
The three special pleas are dismissed.
2.
Costs shall be costs in the cause.
JUDGMENT
Mpama AJ
[1]
The plaintiff instituted an action for
damages against the Road Accident Fund (the defendant/RAF) resulting
from injuries sustained
in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
11 November 2021. It is alleged that the plaintiff was a pedestrian
in Westdene, Bloemfontein,
when he was hit by a motor vehicle. He
sustained some bodily injuries and lodged his claim on 17 May 2023
against the defendant
for compensation for past and future loss of
earnings, general damages and past medical expenses.
[2]
On 28 June 2023, the RAF forwarded a formal objection in writing to
the plaintiff’s claim.
The defendant objected to the validity
of the plaintiff’s claim alleging it did not meet all the
requirements for a valid
claim in terms of rule 24(1) of the Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (the Act).
[3] The
plaintiff did not cure the complaint in the objection letter, instead
he continued with his claim and issued
summons against the defendant.
The defendant, in response to the summons pleaded and raised three
special pleas (the third one
raised in the amended plea). The first
plea pertains to the alleged failure by the plaintiff to lodge a
substantially compliant
claim in terms of s 24 of the Act, read with
Board Notice 271 of 2022. The second plea dealt with the fact that
the summons was
served before compliance with s24 of the Act by the
plaintiff, the defendant’s view being that the summons was
issued and
served prematurely. The last special plea was that of
prescription. On the trial date, the parties agreed that the special
pleas
must be adjudicated first before the matter can be heard on
merits.
[4]
The nub of this matter revolves around whether the plaintiff complied
with the legislative requirements
of s 24 of the Act. The validity of
the plaintiff’s claim lies solely on whether the claim lodged
with the defendant on 17
May 2023 was valid. If the court finds in
favour of the plaintiff on this issue, the two other special pleas
will fall away.
[5]
The plaintiff first, with reference to authorities, stressed that
what was required from the plaintiff
was substantial compliance with
s 24 of the Act and whether the plaintiff complied with the section.
He referred the court to a
plethora of cases,
inter
alia
the decision in
Road
Accident Fund v Busuku
,
[1]
where
it was said:
‘
The
RAF 1 form does not call for the 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
RAF 1 form
requires disclosure of information to guide and facilitate the
investigations.’
[2]
The
plaintiff argued that there were numerous decisions from this court
where these special pleas were dismissed. Reference was
made to the
following decisions:
Jeje
v Road Accident Fund
;
[3]
Ranosi
v Road Accident Fund
;
[4]
and
Rasenyalo
v Road Accident Fund
.
[5]
[6]
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim does not comply
with the provisions of s
24 of the Act and must be dismissed. The
defendant further contended that the plaintiff had not, despite the
defendant’s
written objection, complied with these prescripts.
With regard to the third special plea, it was argued that because the
plaintiff
failed to lodge a valid claim within two years, his claim
has now prescribed. The Counsel for the defendant conceded, in my
view
rightfully so, that she was aware of this court’s
decisions dismissing these special pleas, however, said the
instruction
she held from the defendant was to pursue the special
pleas.
[7]
Section 24(1)
(a)
of the Act provides:
‘
A
claim for compensation and the accompanying medical report under
section 17(1) shall-
be
set out on a prescribed form, which shall be completed in all its
particulars.’
The RAF 1 form serves as
a basis for the claims to be lodged with the defendant.
[8]
The documents that need to accompany the RAF1 form are:
(i) The statutory medical
report completed by the first treating doctor or by the
superintendent of the hospital where the injured
or deceased was
treated.
(ii) Certified copy of
claimant’s identity document /passport
(iii) Accident report and
case docket
(iii) A s 19
(f)
affidavit disclosing how the accident occurred
(iv) Copies of medical
records, X-rays and hospital notes
(v) Copy of pay slips
(vi) Copy of death
certificate, post mortem report (in the event of death)
[9] A perusal of the
plaintiff’s RAF 1 revealed that the plaintiff is identified as
the injured person and the accident details
have been substantially
disclosed. The accident report, s 19
(f)
affidavit and the
hospital records are also attached. However, what is lacking are the
plaintiff’s employment details.
[10]
The purpose of RAF1 is to assist the defendant to investigate the
accident so as to reach a decision on
whether the claim should be
defended or not. My view is that the RAF1 form, together with the
submitted hospital records and the
accident report provided
sufficient information to enable the defendant to investigate the
claim. I am satisfied that there was
substantial compliance with the
provisions of s 24(1) of the Act and a valid claim was lodged by the
plaintiff. In light of this
finding, the two other special pleas
stand to be dismissed.
ORDER
[11] In
the result, the following order is made:
1.
The three special pleas are dismissed.
3.
Costs shall be costs in the cause.
L MPAMA, AJ
Appearances
On
behalf of Plaintiff:
Adv.
Barlow
Instructed
by:
Messrs
Mavuya Attorneys
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of Respondent:
Ms.
J. Gouws
Instructed
by:
Office
of the State Attorney
Bloemfontein
[1]
Road
Accident Fund v Busuku
[2020] ZASCA 158; 2023 (4) SA 507 (SCA).
[2]
Ibid para 16.
[3]
Jeje v
Road Accident Fund
[2024] ZAFSHC 265.
[4]
Ranosi
v Road Accident Fund
[2024] ZAFSHC 310.
[5]
Rasenyalo
v Road Accident Fund
[2023] ZAFSHC 150.