SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION, THEMBALETHU
Case N o: 993/2023; (994/2023);
(894/2023); (18128/2023); (896/2023);
(929/2023);(18126/2023);
(18125/2023); (126/2024);
(18090/2023); (991/2023);
(895/2023); (18089/2023); (104/2024);
(992/2023); (105/2024)
REPORTABLE : YES
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
In the matter between :
HENRICO JOVIHANO MAARMAN PLAINTIFF
(993/2023)
JAKOBUS GEORGE PLAINTIFF
(994/2023)
JOSLIN CINDY PETERSEN PLAINTIFF
(894/2023)
JOHANNA FRANS PLAINTIFF
(18128 /2023)
JOHANNES NOMBANDE PLAINTIFF
(896/2023)
BILLY ANNE BERDINE LAMONT PLAINTIFF
(929/2023 )
GLANWILL CEDERIC PIC KAAN PLAINTIFF
(18126/202 3)
AMBROZE REGAN KEFFERS PLAINTIFF
(18125 /2023)
RENTIA VELENCIA SEFOOR PLAINTIFF
(126/2024 )
JACKY KANNEMEYER obo PLAINTIFF
J[...] D[...] K[...] (18090 /2023)
JACKY KANNEMEYR obo PLAINTIFF
T[...] L[...] L[...] K[...] (991/2023)
SYDNEY TITUS PLAINTIFF
(895/2023)
JACKY KANNEMEYR PLAINTIFF
(18089 /2023)
THULANE JACKY MSIMANGA PLAINTIFF
(104/2024 )
ESTRALITA CAROLINE PHILLIPS obo PLAINTIFF
V[...] T[...] P[...] (105/2024 )
DAVID CARELSE PLAINTIFF
(992/2023)
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
Coram: Kholong AJ
Heard: 28 January 2025
Delivered: 12 March 2025
JUDGMEN T
KHOLONG AJ
Introduction
1. This Court has been called upon to hear a special plea raised by the R oad
Accident Fund (herein -after “RAF”) in defens e to 16 different actions instituted against it
before this Court. Whilst the plaintiffs are different and instituted proceedings
independently, legal representation for plaintiffs and defendant is the same.
Accordingly, the Parties ha ve agreed that the special plea raised in each of these
matters be heard first and conso lidated together before merits in each separate case
are considered . The special plea is dealt with below .
2. The Plaintiffs in these cases are He nrico Jovihano Maarman ; Jakobus George;
Joslin Cindy Petersen; Johanna Frans; Johannes Nombande; Billy Anne Be rdine
Lamont; Glanwill Cederic Pickaan; Ambroze Regan Keffers; Rentia Velencia Sefoor;
Jacky Kannemeyer on behalf of J[...] D[...] K[...]; Jacky Kannemeyr on behalf of T[...]
L[...] L[...] K[...]; Sydney Titus; Jacky Kannemeyr ; Thulane Jacky M simanga; Estralita
Caroline Philips on behalf of V[...] T[...] P[...] and David Carelse .
3. The defendant in all these actions is the RAF, which is an entity established by
the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996 (“the Act”) to compensate victims involved in
accidents arising from the driving of motor vehicles. The incidents , which according to
the record , allegedly involved either motor vehicle collision with driver and passengers
in some instances and in another pedestrian claiming to have been hit by a motor
vehicle driven negligently . It is common cause that a ll these alleged incidents occurred
within this Court’s area of jurisdiction.
Background /Special Plea
4. The parties agreed on a stated case in terms of rule 33 . In summary, t he
questions of law in dispute that the parties want th is Court to determine are the
following:
5.1. Did the lodged documents satisfy the requirements in law to be regarded
that the claim submitted by the plaintiff substantially complied with the procedural
requirements for a validly lodged claim in terms of Section 24 of the Road
Accident Fund Act, Act 56 of 1996.
5.2 Whether t he lodged documents listed , furnish defendant with sufficient
information to enable defendant to investigate and consider the plaintiff’s claim?
5.3 Whether the defendant is entitled to refuse to accept claims which do not
comply with the terms and cond itions set out in Board notice 271 read with the
new RAF 1 form?
5.4 Does the decision to refuse to accept claims constitute an administrative
decision?
5.5 Are the requirements for valid lodgment in terms of Board Notice 271
peremptory and can it be interpreted to make provision for partial compliance to
the Board notice in respect of the lodgment of claims?
5.6 Did the proposed lodgment documents listed satisfy the requir ements of
Board Notice 271 and can it be regard ed that the claim submitted by plaintiff
complied with the procedural requirements for a validly lodged claim in terms of
published stipulated terms and conditions in Board Notice 271 of 2022 read with
Section 24 of the Act, which stipulate which documents must accompany the
claim documentation when submitting a claim for compensation.
5.7 Consequently whether the special plea shoul d be upheld or Dismissed .
Facts
5. Essentially in all of these cases RAF in paragraph 1 of the rejection letters stated
the following:
“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 publishe d 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 ”.
6. In each instance RAF proceeded to object to the validity of the claims submitted
in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and stated that they “ do not accept the
documentation presented/posted/emailed …as a valid claim for the purposes of
lodgment in terms of the Act and accordingly return t he documents. .” .
7. Plaintiffs had on various dates submitted claims against RAF for compensation.
RAF repudiated all these claims. For example , in the case of Maarman, this Plaintiff had
on 18 September 2023 following RAF’s rejection letter issued summons in pursuance of
its claim in the amount of R1 550 000. The RAF raised a special plea in this case as it
did in each of the other aforementioned actions . RAF’s plea which followed a similar
thread in other rej ection letters went as follows:
“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.
On 11 May 2023 the plaintiff posted his claim with the defendant for the following
products General damages, loss of earning, medical expenses.
In the claim posted on 11 May 2023 the plaintiff is obliged to comply with Section
24(5) of the Act as amended.
In the letter dated 01 July 2023, within the time period for the defendant to object,
the defendant in writing, objected to the plaintiff’s claim presented on the grounds
that there was non -compliance with section 24(5) of the Act as amended.
In the cir cumstances the plaintiff’s claim is invalid in Law ”.
8. It was on this basis that defendant prayed for its special plea to be upheld and for
plaintiff’s claim to be dismissed with costs . Save for change in dates on which the
claims were posted in these vario us actions and variation in reasons , as shall be dealt
with below, the 16 rejection letters are premised on largely the same principles, non -
compliance with Section 24 .
Rejection Letters
Jacky Kannemeyr
9. In the case of Jacky Kannemeyr , in the letter dated 7 May 2024 RAF stated that
their pre -assessment reveals that the claim will prescribe on 7 September 2030 and
RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. They proceeded to state that
their pre -assessment having regard to co mpliance with section 24 and the terms and
conditions, reveals that the documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a
substantially compliant and valid claim , the reasons being :
“1. Court order or masters letter of appointment (If curator submitting on behalf of
minor -LOS (if applicable) .
2. Unabridged birth certificate (if natural guardian is cl aiming on behalf of minor) .
3. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts .
4. official documentation confirming any disability grant .
5. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses .
6. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
10. This rejection or objection letter followed on an earlier objection letter of 23 June
2023 . That objection letter had in the main raised similar objections, that is : “Academic
registration/school report; all sta tements and documents as outlined in terms of section
19(f)(i); Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/ permanent disability and loss of earnings claimed; SMR is not completed by
first doctor ”.
Thulane Jacky Msimanga
11. In the case of Thulane Jacky Ms imanga, in the letter dated 2 October 2023 RAF
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with para graph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis
thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with
section 24 and the ter ms and conditions, reveals that the documents submitted do not
meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim because:
“2.1. Copies of all medical and hospital records, including photographs of
the injuries.
2.2. Pay slips pre and post -accident.
2.3. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of
employment, the period of service, remuneration, prospect of
advan cement and compensation and retirement age.
2.4. Proof of any other income, if applicable .
2.5. Official confirmation of remuneration/ compensation received from
other sources (if applicable) .
2.6. Claimant’s tax records if not available, communication from SARS
that claimant is not registered for tax), in which case a bank statement for three
years preceding accident must be submitted (if applicable) .
2.7. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substituting claimant’s
temporary/ permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed.
2.8. Official confirmation of the compensation fund’s award if claimant was
injured during the course and scope of employment.
2.9. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
2.10. Proof of payment of medical expenses.
2.11. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for
the past medical expenses.”
12. This rejection , followed on an earlier rejection of 2 May 2024 where RAF sought
copies of all hospital and medical accounts; official documentation confirming any
disability grant; An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for
past medical ex penses as well as proof of payment of medical expenses .
EC Phillips obo VT
13. In the case of EC Phillips acting on behalf of another, in the letter dated 11 July
2023, RAF objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph
24(5) of the Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued.
The basis thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance
requirements with section 24 and the terms and conditions, reveal ed that the
documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and
valid claim, thus do not accept the documentation . The reasons given were the
following :
“1. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts
2. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/ permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed.
3. Official documentation confirming any disability grant .
4. Copies of all medical and hospital records, including photographs of the
injuries.
3. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses .
4. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
David Carelse
14. In the case of David Carelse, in the letter dated 7 May 2024 they objected to the
validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and stated
that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis thereof was tha t
their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with section 24 and the
terms and conditions in Board notice 271 of 2022, reveals that the documents submitted
do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim, thus do not
accept the documentation . The reasons were the following :
“1. Certified copy of claimants ID (Eligible) .
2. Copies of all hospital and medical records in terms of section 19(e)(i) and
19(e)(ii) .
3. Copies of all hospital and medical records, inclu ding photographs of injuries or
scarring.
4. Proof of any other income, if applicable.
5. Photographs of injuries or scarring.
6. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
7. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
8. An itemized tax inv oice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses.
9. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
Rentia Velentia Sefoor
15. In the case of Rentia Velentia Sefoor, i n the letter dated 8 August 2023 they
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis
thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requireme nts with
section 24 and the terms and conditions in Board notice 271 of 2022, they advised that
the documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant
and valid claim, thus do not accept the documentation because:
“1. Statutory Medical Report ( must be completed by the first treating Doctor/ must
be completed using a disclaimer that it was completed with available hospital
records) .
2. Copies of all hospital and medical records in terms of section 19(e)(i) and
19(e)(ii).
3. Copies of all hospital and medical records, including pho tographs of Injuries .
4. Pay -slips pre and post -accident .
5. Employer’s certificate of injured’ service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration , prospects of advancement and compensation
and retirement age.
6. Proof of any other income, if applicable.
7. Photographs of injuries or scarring.
8. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
9. Medical reports or documentation establishing or su bstantiating claimant’s
temporary/permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed .
10.Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
11. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses.
12. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
16. This letter was followed by a letter of 7 May 2024 where many of the objections
reduced but for Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment,
the period of service, remuneration, prospects of advancement and compensation and
retirement age; copies of all hospital and medical accounts; official documentation
confirming any di sability grant; an itemized tax invoice from a registered medical
provider/or hospital for past medical expenses; and proof of payment of medical
expenses. This letter stated the standard paragraphs as in the previous letter of
objection with indication th at claim will prescribe on 11 October 2023.
GC PICKAAN
17. In the case of GC Pickaan , in the letter da ted 12 September 2023 RAF objected
to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and
stated that RAF will take a spe cial plea should summons be issued. The basis thereof
was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with section
24 and the terms and conditions in Board notice 271 of 2022, revealed that the
documents submitted do not meet the req uirements for a substantially compliant and
valid claim, thus do not accept the documentation because:
“1. Copies of all hospital and medical record s, including photographs of the
injuries .
2. Payslips pre and post -accident.
3. Employer’s certificate of injured’ service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospects of advancement and compensation
and retirement age
4. Proof of any other income, if applicable
5. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
6. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed
7. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
8. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses .
9. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
18. This lett er was followed by a letter of 2 1 May 2024 where many of the objections
reduced but for copies of medical records . This letter stated the standard paragraphs as
in the previous letter which includ ed the question of prescription which RAF stated will
only be interrupted once a valid claim is lodged.
J George
19. In the case of J George, in the letter dated 4 July 2023 they objected to the
validity of th e claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and stated
that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis thereof was that
their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with section 24 and the
terms an d conditions in Board notice 271 of 2022, revealed that the documents
submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim,
thus do not accept the documentation because:
“1. Copies of all h ospital and medical records, inclu ding photographs of the
injuries.
.2. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
3. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed
4.Official confirmation of remuneration/compensation received from other
sources (if applicable)
5. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses.
6. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
7. “SMR – NOT DULLY COMPLETED AND NOT FIRST TREATING DOCTOR”.
20. This letter was followed by a letter of 21 May 2024 where many of the objections
were restated and added query on proof of any other income if applicable . This letter
stated the standard paragraphs as in the previous letter including the question of
prescription which RAF stated will only be interrupted once a valid claim is lodged.
Ambrose Regan Keffers
21. In the case of Ambrose Regan Keffers, in the letter dated 12 September 2023
they objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5)
of the Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The
basis thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements
with section 24 and the terms and conditions in Board notice 271 of 2022, revealed that
the documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant
and valid claim, thus do not accept the documentation beca use:
“1. Pay -slips pre and post -accident.
2. Employer’s certificate of injured’ service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospects of advancement and compensation
and retirement age
3. claimant’s tax records (if not available, communication from SARS that
claimant is not registered for tax), in which case a bank statement for three years
preceding accident must be submitted (if applicable).
4. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for past
medical expenses.
5. Proof of payment of medical expenses.
6. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
7. Copies of all hospital and medical records, including photographs of the
injuries.
8. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed.
9. Official documentation confirming any disability grant ”.
22. This lette r was followed by a letter of 22 May 2024 where some of the objections
reduced . Added proof of any other income; payslips pre and post accident. This letter
stated the standard paragraphs as in the previous letter which includ ed the question of
prescription on 29 April 2024 which RAF stated will only be interrupted once a valid
claim is lodged.
Johanna Frans
23. In the case of Johanna Frans, in the letter dated 19 September 2023 they
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis
thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with
section 24 and the terms and conditions in Bo ard notice 271 of 2022, revealed that the
documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and
valid claim, thus do not accept the documentation because:
“1. SMR not duly completed
2. Cert ified copy of marriage certificate.
3. Deceased’s tax records ( if not available, communication from SARS that
claimant is not registered for tax, in which case a bank statement for three years
preceding death must be submitted)
4.Claimant’s tax records ( if not available, communica tion from SARS that
claimant is not registered for tax, in which case a bank statement for three years
preceding death must be submitted.
5. Copy of liquidation and distribution account, if applicable.
6. The sassa grant official documents, if appl icable.
7. The actuarial report.
8. If applicable, confirmation of all payments in terms of compensation
commissioner , rand Mutual, Poilce, Defence Force etc.
9. Official confirmation of remuneration/compensation received from other
sources, if applicable ’.
24. This letter was followed by a letter of 22 May 2024 where some of the objections
reduced and others added. RAF stated the following as its reasons:
“1. Statutory Medical Report (SMR) as per section 24 substantial compliance.
2. Certified copy of marriage certificate/ certificate proving customary
marriage/unabridged birth certif icate (if children) .
3. If not married, an affidavit setting out the legal basis of claimant’s dependency
on deceased.
4.Employer’s certificate of deceased’s services showing nature of employment,
the period of service, remuneration prospects of a dvancement and compensation
and retirement age.
5. Deceased’s payslips .
6. Copy of maintenance order. (if divorced).
7.Claimant’s tax records (if not available, communication from SARS that
claimant is not registered for tax), in which case a bank statement for three years
preceding death must be submitted.
8. Deceased’s tax records (if not available, communication from SARS that
claimant is not registered for tax, in which case a bank statement for three years
preceding death must be submitted)
9. Copy of liquidation and dis tribution account.
10. The Child support grant documentation.
11. Employer’s certificate of spouse indicating period of employment,
remuneration, prospects of advancement.
12. Proof of guardianship (if claimant not biological parent) .
13. The actuarial report.
14. All payme nts in terms of compensation commissioner, rand Mutual, Poilce,
Defense Force etc.
15. Specified voucher for medical costs, if claimed.
16. Any other proof of income of the deceased, letter from employer, affidavit
from employer/ or any person that can confirm that deceased had income to
support dependents .
17. Official confirmation of remuneration/compensation received from other
sources /proof of additional income.
Sydney Titus
25. In the case of Sydney Titus, in the letter dated 16 May 2024 they objected to the
validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and stated
that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis thereof was tha t
their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with section 24 and the
terms and conditions, revealed that the documents submitted do not meet the
requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim because:
“2.1.Ceritfied copy of claimants ID.
2.2. Payslips pre and post -accident.
2.3. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospect of advancement and compensation and
retirement age.
2.4. Proof of any other income , if applicable .
2.5. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
2.16. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
26. This letter was preceded by a letter of 28 February 2023 requiring a number of
documents to be submitted.
Johann es Nombande .
27. In the case of Johannes Nombande, in the letter dated 2 1 May 2024 they
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basi s
thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with
section 24 and the terms and conditions, revealed that the documents submitted do not
meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim because:
“2.1. Statutory Medical Report (SMR) as per section 24 substantial compliance.
2.2. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospect of advancement and compensation and
retirement
age.
2.3. Payslips pre and post -accident.
2.4. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for
past medical expenses .
2.5. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
28. This letter was preceded by a letter of 2 May 2024 and raising similar queries but
one and letter of 11 June 2023 and 28 February 2023 requiring a number of such
similar documents to be submitted.
Billy Anne Berdine Hendrik s (Lamont)
29. In the case of B illy Anne Berdine Hendriks (Lamont) , in the letter dated 22 May
2024 they objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph
24(5) of the Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued.
The basis thereof was that their pre -assessment having re gard to compliance
requirements with section 24 and the terms and conditions, revealed that the
documents submitted do not meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and
valid claim because:
“2.1. Statutory Medical Report (SMR) as per section 24 s ubstantial compliance.
2.2. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospect of advancement and compensation and
retirement age.
2.3. Proof of any other income, if app licable.
2.4. Payslips pre and post -accident.
2.5. Photographs of injuries or scarring.
2.6. Medical reports or documentation establishing or substantiating claimant’s
temporary/permanent disability and the loss of earnings claimed (medico -legal
reports)
2.7. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
2.8. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for
past medical expenses.
2.9. Proof of payment of medical expenses.
30. This letter was preceded by a letter of 22 May 2023 where such similar queries
were raised bar certain variations.
Joslyn Cindy Petersen .
31. In the case of Joslyn Cindy Petersen, in the letter dated 15 May 2024 they
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis
thereo f was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with
section 24 and the terms and conditions, revealed that the documents submitted do not
meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim, thus do not accept
the documentation because:
“1. Statutory medical report (must be completed by the first treating doctor/ must
be completed using a disclaimer that that it was completed with available hospital
records).
2. Power of attorney.
3. Copies of all medical and hospital records in terms of section 19.
4. Copies of all medical and hospital records, including photographs of the
injuries or scarring.
5. Photographs of injuries or scarring.
6. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
7. An itemiz ed tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for the
past medical expenses
8. proof of payment of medical expenses.”
32. In this letter of 2024 they advise that the ‘claim will prescribe on Tuesday 2
August 2022”. This letter had been preceded by letters of the 16th and 17th May 2023.
Henrico Jovihano Maarman
33. In the case of Henrico Jovihano Maarman , in the letter dated 7 May 2024 they
objected to the validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the
Act and stated that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis
thereof was that their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with
sectio n 24 and the terms and conditions, revealed that the documents submitted do not
meet the requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim because:
“2.1. Statutory Medical Report (SMR) as per section 24 substantial compliance.
2.2. Copies of all hospital and medical records, including photographs of injuries
or scarring.
2.3. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature o f employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospect of advancement and compensation and
retirement age.
2.4. Proof of any other income, if applicable.
2.5. Payslips pre and post -accident.
2.6. Photographs of injuries or scarring.
2.7. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
2.8. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
2.9. An itemized tax invoice from a registered medical provider/or hospital for
past medical expenses.
2.10. Proof of payment of medical ex penses.
34. This letter was preceded by a letter of 1 July 2023 where such similar queries
with variation were raised.
Sydney Titus
35. In the case of Sydney Titus, in the letter dated 15 May 2024 they objected to the
validity of the claim submitted in accordance with paragraph 24(5) of the Act and stated
that RAF will take a special plea should summons be issued. The basis thereof was tha t
their pre -assessment having regard to compliance requirements with section 24 and the
terms and conditions, revealed that the documents submitted do not meet the
requirements for a substantially compliant and valid claim because:
“2.1. Certified copy of Claimants ID .
2.2. Employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment, the
period of service, remuneration, prospect of advancement and compensation and
retirement age.
2.3. Proof of any other income, if applicable.
2.4. Pay -slips pre and post -accident.
2.5. Copies of all hospital and medical accounts.
2.6. Official documentation confirming any disability grant.
2.7. Proof of payment of medical expenses ”.
36. This letter was preceded by a letter of 28 February 2023 which such sim ilar
queries in that letter including items removed as per the items afore -shadowed.
Defendant’s contentions
37. State Attorney, Mr. Goosen on behalf of the RAF, essentially contends that
defendant, RAF , objects to all these claims delivered on the different dates referenced
above in respect of each claimant as the claims do not meet requirements for a
substantially valid and compliant claim . That Plaintiff “requires an answer” whether the
listed and attached documents to the stated case satisfy the requirements in law to be
regarded as substantially compliant with the procedural requirements for a validly
lodged claim in terms of Section 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act1. Whether the
listed and submitted documents furnish defendant with sufficient information to enable
defendant to investigate and consider the claim.
38. State Attorney then proceeds to argue that the decision to reject the lodgment
documents amounts to administrative action. That it consequently remains vali d and
binding unless set aside in terms of administrative review proceedings. That plaintiff has
chosen a wrong procedure for the relief it seeks , and thus the application falls to be
dismissed.
39. RAF posits that Section 24 sets out the procedure for lodgin g claims in terms of
the Act. That Section 24(1) requires “a claim for compensation and accompanying
medical report to be set out in the prescribed form, which “shall be completed in all its
particulars”. Further that Section 24(4)(a) provides that “..any form referred to which is
not completed in all its particulars shall not be acceptable as a claim under th is Act”.
40. The form in question is the RAF1 form, provided for in terms of Regulation 7(1) of
the RAF Regulations, 2008. Defendant reminds this Court that regulation 7(1) reads:
“A claim for compensation and accompanying medical report referred to in
section 24(1)(a) of the Act, shall be in the form RAF1 attached as annexure A to
these Regulations, or such amendment or substitution thereof as the Fund may
from time to time give notice in the Gazette ”.
41. Mr. Goosen in argument explains that RAF is a juristic person established in
terms of Section 2(1) and thus in terms of Section 4(1) its powers and functions include
“the stipulation of the terms and con ditions upon which claims for the compensation
contemplated in section 3 shall be administered”.
1 Act 56 of 1996.
42. He contends that the Fund has exercised its statutory authority in terms of the
above section by issuing Board Notice (BN) 271 of 20222, which sets out as part of the
terms and conditions, a comprehensive list of documents which must be included and
form part of the claim’s supporting documents when lodging a claim to the fund. He
argues that the new RAF1 form was duly promulgated in GN2335 on 4 July 2022. T hat
these regulatory amendments have not been challenged in these proceedings and thus
remain in force.
43. Mr. Goosen then concludes his argument with the contention that the cumulative
effect of these regulatory changes is that the fund is entitled to refu se to accept claims
which do not comply with the terms an d conditions set out in BN271/2022 read with new
RAF1 form. That in any event this decision constitutes administrative action. In this
regard State Attorney draws this Court’s attention to the decisi on in Road Accident
Fund v Duma and Others3 where the Court noted that whether or not RAF4 form
correctly assessed claimant’s injury as serious constitutes administrative action as
contemplated by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act4(“PAJA”) . That the
position is thus governed by the provisions of PAJA. He proceeded to contend that it
was found in that case that the Court’s control over these decisions is by means of the
review proceedings under PAJA.
44. Further that applying the Oudekraal5 principle, to the extent that such decision
constitutes administrative action until that decision is set aside by a Court on review or
overturned in an internal appeal, it remained valid and binding. That consequently
whether the RAF decision were right o r wrong is of no consequence. As per authority in
Oudekraal, he argues, those decisions exist as a fact until set aside or reviewed or
overturned in an internal appeal.
2Published in GG46322 ( 6 May 2022).
3 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA).
4 Act 3 0f 2000.
5 Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town 2004 (6) SA 222(SCA).
45. State At torney further referred this Court to the authority in Makupane v Road
Acciden t Fund6 where the Court held that:
“The RAF is an organ of state as defined in section 239 of the Constitution and it
is performing a public function in considering RAF4 reports submitted to it. Where
the RAF is vested with discretion and powers to consider and determine the
acceptance of an assessment of plaintiff’s injuries as serious or not, it has
concomitant duty to exercise that power. The exercise of that power, i.e . the
making of a decision to accept or reject the assessment contained in the RAF4
report, amounts to administrative action, which is reviewable in terms of the
Promotion of Administrative Justic e Act”7.
46. RAF thus contends that in deciding to reject the lodgment documents as non -
compliant for the reasons it stated in the different rejection letters, the RAF as an organ
of state was performing a public function in determining whether the lodgment
documents complied with the requirements of a valid claim as set out in regulation 7(1)
of the RAF Regulations 2008. That this decision constitutes administrative action which
remains valid and binding until reviewed by a `court following PAJA review appl ication.
He concludes his argument with contention that plaintiff has chosen a wrong procedure,
and must as a matter of law, have its action dismissed.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
47. Plaintiff summarizes defendant’s special defense essentially as the plea that
plaintiff’s claim is invalid in law as plaintiff failed to provide defendant with the
documents it required in the rejection letters outlined above. That it is common cause
between the parties that the documents outstanding ar e not documents prescribed by
Section 24 of the Act but only documents required in terms of RAF Board Notice 271 of
6 May 2022 ( herein -after “the board notice”.
6 (9077/2022)[2023] ZAGPPHC 15 (19 January 2023) .
7 Ibid at paragraph 9 .
48. Plaintiffs argue that the noting of the objections by the defendant in the letters of
objecti on does not preclude the plaintiff to issue summons. That the objections would
only have legal effect if they are valid and the noting of an objection by RAF does not
prohibit applicants from proceeding with the issuance of summons to enforce their
claims. That as determined in Radebe8 the validity of the objection falls to the Courts to
decide, once it is pleaded as a defen se.
49. That RAF bears the onus to prove that plaintiff’s claims are invalid in law as
plaintiffs failed to provide specific documents to RAF and that by so failing , failed to
comply with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, read with the board notice. For this
submission applicants rely on the case of Scott v Road Accident Fund9. Relying on
the authority of Touyz v Greater Johannesbu rg Transitional Metropolitan Council10
plaintiffs note that:
“…it was for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff had forfeited her right to be
compensated by reason of her non -compliance with those provisions and… not
for the plaintiff to prove that she had not forfeited her right ”.
50. That consequently, if the Court is not convinced by defendant on a balance of
probabilities that the documents provided by plaintiff s do not comply with the provisions
of section 24 the defendant’s special plea must fail.
51. Counsel for the plaintiffs argue s that contrary to the agreement between the
parties that the disputes raised by the special plea should be adjudicated by the Court ,
the defendant now elects to raise a completely new dispute by alleging that the
plaintiff’s should have approached the Court fo r a review of the decision of the
employees of RAF who objected to and refused to receive the documents and claims
submitted. That RAF received these RAF 1 forms twice but elected to return them.
8 Radebe v Road A ccident Fund (053998/2023;074803/2023) [2024]
9 (13/33469) [2015] ZAGPJHC 120 (11 June 2015). At para 21, 29 and 30.
10 1996 (1) SA 950(A) at 96
52. In respect of the Board notice 271 applicants argue d that a full bench of the
Gauteng Provincial Division reviewed and set aside the Board notice 271 of 2022. That
application for leave to appeal that judgement is still pending. Th ey argue th at plaintiff s
do not attack the validity of the Board notice in th ese proceedings and accepts their
validity. That instead the parties specifically request this Court to consider the
documents that were submitted by the plaintiff s and make a ruling on whether by
providing those documents, that constitutes substantial co mpliance .
53. Counsel for Plaintiffs argue s that the documents supplied by the plaintiffs to the
defendant substantially complies with the requirements of Section 24 of the Act. It is
also their case that the documents listed in terms of Board notice 271 are not the
documents that defendant needs in order to be in a position to consider the claim of the
plaintiff and to decide whether or not to oppose the plaintiff’s claim.
54. Plaintiffs contend that the board notice , being an internal board notice, can never
trump the provisions of an Act of parliament. That Section 4(1)(a) empowers RAF to
issue directives dealing with the internal administration of RAF and the manner in which
claims shall be administered. Relying on Mudawo and Others v Minister of Transport
and Another11 they argue t hat these directives do not acquire the force of law and
cannot impermissibly conflict with the provisions of the Act. That the same applies to the
provisions of the RAF 1 form. That the RAF 1 form which is a form prescribed in the
Regulations under the Act, directs a claimant as follows:
“In an affidavit to be attached to this claim form, please describe how the
accident occurred ”. That to the extent that this appear on part 5 of the form , this
direction seems to require that the affidavit must accompany the claim form.
Relying on Scott v Road Accident Fund12 they submit that this requirement by
11 (011795/2022)[2024] ZAGPPHC 258 (26 March 2024) at para 44.
12 (13/33469)[2015] ZAGP JHC 120 (11 June 2015) at para 25.
RAF cannot alter the provisions of the Act which permit the subsequent filing of a
section 19(f)(i) affidavit.
55. Counsel f or plaintiffs proceeds to submit that the special plea needs to be
considered with reference to Section 24 of the Act.
Section 24 of the Act provides:
Procedure
(1) A claim for compensation and accompanying medical report under section
17(1) shall -
(a) Be set out in the prescribed form, which shall be completed in all its
particulars;
(b) Be sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the Fund at its principal
branch or regional office, or to the agent who in terms of section 8 must handle
the claim, at the agent’s registered office or local branch office , and the fund or
such agent shall at the time of delivery by hand acknowledge receipt thereof and
the date of such receipt in writing.
(2)(a) The medical report shall be completed on the prescribed form by the
medical practitioner who treated the deceased or injured person for the bodily
injuries sustained in the accident from which the claim arises, or by the
superintendent (or his representative) of the hospital where the deceased or
injured person was treated for such bodily injuries: provided that, if the medical
practitioner or superintendent (or his or her representative) concerned fails to
complete the medical report on request within a reasonable time and it appears
that as a result of the passage of time the claim concerned may become
prescribed, the medical report may be completed by another medical practitioner
who has fully satisfied himself or herself regarding the cause of the death or the
nature and treatment of the bodily injuries in respect of which the claim is made
(b) Where a person is killed outright in a motor vehicle accident the completion of
the medical report shall not be a requirement, but in such a case the form
referred to in subsection (1)(a) shall be accompanied by documentary proof,
such as a copy of the relevant inquest record or, in the case of a prosecution of
the person who allegedly caused the deceased’s death, a copy of the relevant
charge sheet from which it can clearly be determined that such person’s death
resulted fro m the accident to which the claim relates.
(3) A claim by a supplier for the payment of expenses in terms of section 17(5)
shall be in the prescribed form, and the provisions of this section shall apply
mutates mutandis in respect of the completion of such form.
(4) (a) 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.
(b) A clear reply shall be given to each question contained in the form referred to
in subsection (1), and if a question is not applicable, the words ‘not applicable’
shall be inserted.
(c) A form on which ticks, dashes, deletions and alterations have been made that
are not conf irmed by a signature shall not be regarded as properly completed.
(d) Precise details shall be given in respect of each item under the heading
“compensation claimed” and shall, where applicable, be accompanied by
supporting vouchers.
(5) If the Fund or the agent does not, within 60 days from the date on which a
claim was sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the Fund or such agent
as contemplated in subsection (1), object to the validity thereof, the claim shall be
deemed to be valid in law in all respects.
(6) No claim shall be enforceable by legal proceedings commenced by a
summons served on the Fund or an agent -
(a) before the expiry of a period of 120 days from the date on which the claim
was sent or delivered by hand to the fund or the Agent a s contemplated in
subsection (1); and
(b) before all requirements contemplated in section 19(f) have been complied
with:
Provided that if the fund or the agent repudiates in writing liability for the claim
before the expiry of the said period, the third pa rty may at any time after such
repudiation serve summons on the Fund or the agent, as the case may be …”
The Law
56. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Pithey v Road Accident Fund13 noted that 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 suff ices. That the test for substantial compliance is an objective test.
57. In Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund v Radebe14 the Court noted the
following:
“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 t he 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..are
obviously not unlimited. They are not to be expec ted 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 ”.
58. The Court in Pithey concurred with these remarks in Radebe as to the purpose of
the claim forms. In distinguishing Geldenhuys which was considering whether regulation
2(3) made under section 26 was valid. The Court conceded that there was a distinction
on the facts of that c ase under section 17(1)(a) and a claim under section 17(1)(b) but
that this cannot mean that even when the fund, within the prescribed two year period, is
13 2014 (4) SA 112 (SCA).
14 1996 (2) SA 145 (A).
in possession of information which a claimant is statutorily obliged to supply and which,
when read i n tandem with the claim form as intended by claimant, reveals that the claim
really relates to an unidentified vehicle, the fund is entitled to repudiate the claim on the
basis that no valid claim had been made. Nor ought the fund to benefit from its own
failure to clarify, with minimal time, effort and expense, whatever confusion the claim
form and attached documentation revealed. The Court in Pithey went on to observe on
the facts of that case that this was not a case where no information was supplied to the
Fund in relation to the claim. That there was no suggestion of fraudulent or made -up
claim.
59. The Court observed that to uphold the Fund’s contentions in the circumstances
of that case would be to:
“(a) elevate form above substance; (b) be rigidly techn ical against a just result ;
and (c) subvert the objects of the Act…”15 The Supreme Court of Appeal
conceded that it is not laying a general rule but deciding that case on its own
specific merits.
60. In Ndlumbini Mlamli v Road Accident Fund16 the Court concurred with the
obiter in Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund17 which observed the following:
“The date of delivery of the claim is the essential first step for the enforcement of
any rights in terms of the Act. This first step is crucial for claimants because it
determines whether or not their claim in the first instance ha s been submitted
timeously. There is no provision in the Act which permits the RAF to refuse to
accept the delivery of a claim or to refuse to acknowledge receipt of that claim.
Had the legislature contemplated such a situation, it would have provided for it
specifically”.
15 Pithey . RAF, Op sit at 123.
16 955/2024 EC at paragraph 29
17 (29459/2021)[2023] ZAGPP HC 1843 at para 64.
61. In Road Accident Fund v Busuku18 it was observed as follows:
“…the primary concern of the Act 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 of a motor vehicle. For this reason, the provisions of the Act
must be inte rpreted as extensively as possible in favour of third parties to afford
them the widest possible protection” .
Analysis of the Facts
62. It follows from the cases referenced above that in circumstances where there is
no fraud or misrepresentation the objects of the Fund as contemplated in section 3
thereof must be given effect in circumstances where there is loss or damage wrongfully
caused by the driving of motor vehicles .
63. This Court holds that the purpose of Section 24 of the Act is to place defendant in
a position where it can evaluate the merits of the claim to be instituted against it and to
establish whether the claim is valid or open to opposition. This is so as respondent as a
creature of statute must give effect, within permissible limits, to the obje ct of the Act.
There is therefore no basis to reject a claim or refuse to accept a claim for purposes of
proper investigation purely because information relevant to quantum of damages is
considered by the RAF to be incomplete. Especially in circumstances w here claimants
as in some of these cases face the real prospect of their claims facing prescription. Nor
does RAF administrative arrangements on processing or investigation of claims justify
dilatory tactics to otherwise valid claims.
64. As an example i n the case of Maarman , the evidence is that the RAF 1 form was
submitted accompanied by copies of medical report from the Mosselbay hospital with
clinical notes. The clinical notes indicate the injuries on the right leg and other parts of
the body and the Do cter notes that plaintiff is a MVA passenger. The RAF 1 form clearly
18 Road Accident Fund v Busuku 2023 (4) SA 507 (SCA) at para 6.
outlines the vehicles involved and the accident report number. On the face of it this is a
legitimate claim that warrants investigation . From the RAF 1 form it is evident that
Plaintiff i s unemployed as references to employment have been scratched out as not
applicable.
65. This Court finds that objectively Maarman substantially complie s with
requirements of Section 24 of the Act having submitted the RAF 1 form and
accompanying medical report with clinical notes for RAF to assess and properly
investigate the merits of the Plaintiffs claim. To require proof of any other income “if
applicable”; Payslips pre and post accident; me dical accounts; confirmation of disability
grant; itemized tax invoice and proof of payment of medical expenses is not in this
Court’s view a valid reason to refuse even the first step of the claim , assessment of the
merits.
Sydney Titus
66. Similarly in the case of Sydney Titus the evidence is that the RAF 1 form
accompanied by the medical records with clinical notes and the accident report were
submitted . This Court thus finds that there is substantial compliance with Section 24 for
RAF to assess this Plaintiff’s claim. To reject it and refuse to receive what is otherwise a
legitimate claim warranting investigation and proper assessment by RAF purely
because Titus has not submitted payslips; proof of other income; disability grant ; proof
of payment of medical expenses; proof of employer’s certificate which are not relevant
to determination of whether RAF is liable or not for the claim as a matter of law would
not be just and equitable. It would be contrary to the express objects of the Act which is
to compensate victims who suffered damages arising from motor vehicle accidents . In
the result this Court finds that Sydney Titus’ claim substantially complies with section 24
and must be admitted for assessment.
Jacky Kannemeyr
67. In the case of Jacky Kannemeyr the evidence is that the RAF 1 document
accompanied by a medical report with clinical notes by a Docter treating the patient
noting “a male parent driver of bakkie involved in MVA - chest pains”, looked together
with an accident re port makes the submission by Plaintiffs substantially compliant with
Section 24 to enable RAF to assess the merits of the claim. To reject the claim because
of
“Court order or masters letter of appointment”; Unabridged birth certificate; medical
accounts and expenses; itemized tax invoice effectively subverts the object of the Act.
This Court on the facts of this case finds that the claim of Jacky Kannemeyr
substantially complies with the requirements of the Act and the merits of the claim ought
to be asse ssed by RAF .
J[...] D[...] K[...]
68. Similarly , this Court finds that in the matter where Jacky Kannemeyer is acting on
behalf of J[...] D[...] K[...] considering that a RAF 1 form accompanied inter alia by a
medical report from Mosselbay Hospital with clinical notes. These notes indicate that
the child wh o is plaintiff was presented to the hospital after “being in a MVA”. If these
reports are looked to gether with the Kwanonqaba SAPS accident report, this Court
cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the Act for purposes of
Section 24 for RAF to consider the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the
claim cannot be re jected simply because proof of medical expenses; itemized tax
invoice from medical provider ; nor official documentation confirming disability grant nor
masters letter can not be said to merit an outright rejection of the assessment of the
merits of the claim.
T[...] L[...]
69. This Court finds that in the matter where Jacky Kannemeyer is acting on behalf
of T[...] L[...] considering that a RAF 1 form accompanied inter alia by a medical report
from Mossel Bay Hospital with clinical notes. These notes indicate that plaintiff was
presented to the hospital after “being in a MVA” with lacerations on back of the head
and chest pain. If these reports are looked together with the Kwanonqaba SAPS
accident report, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance
with the Act for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s
view that the claim cannot be rejected simply because of the absence proof of medical
expenses; itemized tax invoice from medical provider; nor official documentation
confirming disability grant nor masters letter . These cannot be said to merit an outright
rejection of the claim.
Thulane Jacky Msimanga
70. This Court finds that in the matter where Thulane Jacky Msimanga is plaintiff, this
Court consider s that a RAF 1 form submitted was accompanied inter alia by a medical
report from Mosselbay Hospital with clinical notes. These notes indicate that the plaintiff
was presented to the hospital after “being in a MVA”. If these reports are looked
together with the Grootbrakrivier SAPS accident report, this Court cannot escape the
view that there is substantial compliance with Section 24 of the Act for purposes of RAF
considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the claim ’s acceptance by
RAF for investigation and assessment cannot be rejected simply because of failure to
submit proof of medical expenses; itemized tax invoice from medical provider; nor
official documentation confirming disability grant ; payslips; employer’s certificates of
injured service; nor proof of other income. These queries are more relevant to quatum in
the main and cannot be said to merit an outright rejection of the claim. This Court finds
substantial compliance.
EC Phillips obo V[...] T[...] P[...]
71. In the case of EC Phillips on behalf of V[...] P[...] this Court consider s that a RAF
1 form accompanied inter alia by a medical report from George Regional Hospital with
clinical notes was submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the
hospital after “being in a MVA”. If these reports are looked together with the Conville
SAPS accident r eport, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial
compliance with the Act for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is
this Court’s view that the claim cannot be rejected simply because of failure according
to RAF officia ls to submit proof of medical accounts and expenses; itemized tax invoice
from a medical provider; nor official documentation confirming disability grant . Nor can it
be said that proof of medical accounts can be said to merit an outright rejection of the
claim. This Court finds substantial compliance to Section 24 of the Act which merit
consideration of the claim.
David Carelse
72. In the case of David Carelse considering that a RAF 1 form accompanied inter
alia by a medical report from Mossel Bay Hospital with clinical notes. These notes
indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after being in a MVA. If these reports
are looked together with the Kwanonqaba SAP S accident report, this Court cannot
escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the Act for purposes of RAF
considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the claim cannot be
rejected simply because of failure by plaintiff , according to RAF, to submit itemized tax
invoice from a medical provider; copies of all hospital and medical records; proof of any
other income, if applicable; copies of all hospital and medical accounts . Nor can it be
said reasonably that proof of any other income can be said to merit an outright rejection
of the claim. This Court finds substantial compliance to Section 24 of the Act which
merit consideration of the claim .
Rentia Velentia Sefoor
73. In the case of Rentia Velentia Sefoor considering tha t a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from Mossel Bay Hospital with clinical notes
was submitted . That th ese notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital
after being in a MVA - “right shoulder and back pain”. If these repo rts are looked
together with the Dagamaskop SAPS accident report and case docket , this Court
cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the Act for purposes of
RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the claim cannot be
rejected simply because of itemized tax invoice from a medical provider; copies of all
hospital and medical accounts ; proof of any other income, if applicable; proof of
payment of medical expenses nor can it be said that confirmation of dis ability grant can
be construed to merit an outright rejection of the claim. This Court finds substantial
compliance with section 24 to the Act which merit consideration of the claim.
GC P ickaan
74. In the case of GC Pickaan this Court consider s that a RAF 1 form accompanied
inter alia by a medical report from George Provincial Hospital with clinical notes was
submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after being in
a MVA - “allegedly hit by a taxi..”. If these r eports are looked together with the Conville
SAPS accident repor t, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial
compliance with Section 24 of the Act for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the
claim. It is this Court’s view that the c laim cannot be rejected simply because of what
RAF terms itemized tax invoice from a medical provider; copies of all hospital and
medical accounts; proof of any other income, if applicable; proof of payment of medical
expenses nor confirmation of disabilit y grant can be said to merit an outright rejection of
the claim. This Court finds substantial compliance with Section 24 to the Act which merit
consideration of the claim.
J George
75. In the case of J George considering that a RAF 1 form accompanied inter alia by
a medical report from George Provincial Hospital with clinical notes was submitted .
These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after being in a MVA. If
these reports are looked together with the Kwanonqaba SAPS accident repor t, this
Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the Act for
purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the claim
cannot be rejected simply because of what RAF terms itemized tax invoice from a
medical provider; copies of all hospital and medical accounts; Official confirmation of
remuneration; medical accounts and confirmation of disability grant . These cannot be
said to merit an outright rejection of the claim. This Court finds substanti al compliance
with Section 24 to the Act which merit consideration of the claim.
Ambrose Regan Keffers
76. In the case of Ambrose Regan Keffers this Court consider s that a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from George Provincial Hospital with clinical
notes was submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital
after being in a MVA . The note on the report states - “It was reported that he was hit by a
car..”. Consequently, If these reports are looked together with the Conville SAPS
accident report, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance
with Section 24 of the Act for purposes of RAF consideri ng the merits of the claim. It is
this Court’s view that the claim cannot be rejected simply because of what RAF terms
itemized tax invoice from a medical provider; copies of all hospital and medical
accounts; proof of payment of medical expenses; payslips pre and post accident;
medical accounts and confirmation of disability grant . These cannot be said to merit an
outright rejection of the claim for purposes of assessing the merits . This Court finds
substantial compliance with section 24 to the Act which m erit consideration of the claim.
Johanna Frans
77. In the case of Johanna Frans this Court consider s that a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from Mossel Bay Hospital with clinical notes
was submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after
being in a MVA . The report notes “MVA Came in with lacerations to the head ..”. If these
reports are looked together with the Kwanonqaba SAPS accident report, this Court
cannot escape the view that there is substantial co mpliance with Section 24 of the Act
for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the
claim cannot be rejected simply because of what RAF terms certified copy of medical
certificate; deceased’s tax records; claimant’ s tax records; copy of liquidation and
distribution account; actuarial report; confirmation of all payments in terms of
compensation commissioner . These cannot be said to merit an outright rejection of the
claim. This Court finds substantial compliance to Section 24 of the Act which merit
consideration of the claim.
Sydney Titus
78. In the case of Sydney Titus considering that a RAF 1 form accompanied inter alia
by a medical report from Medi Clinic with clinical notes was submitted . These notes
indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after being in a MVA. If these report s
are looked together with the Pacaltsdorp SAPS accident report, this Court cannot
escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the Act for purposes of RAF
considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that the claim cannot be
rejected simply because of what RAF terms payslips pre and post accident ; Employer’s
certificate of injured service showing nature of employment; proof of other income and
confirmation of disability grant . These cannot be said to merit an outright rejection of the
claim. This Court finds substantial compliance with Section 24 of the Act which merit
consideration of the claim.
Johann es Nombande
79. In the case of Johann es Nombande this Court consider s that a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from George Provincial Hospital with clinical
notes was submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital
after being in a MVA . The report notes ” ..struck by a taxi ..”. If these reports are looked
together with the George SAPS accident report, this Court cannot escape the view that
there is substantial compliance with Section 24 of the Act for purposes of RAF
considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s vi ew that the claim cannot be
rejected simply because of what RAF terms itemized tax invoice from a medical
provider; proof of payment of medical expenses; payslips pre and post accident;
employer’s certificate of injured service showing nature of employment . These cannot
be said to merit an outright rejection of the claim. This Court finds substantial
compliance with Section 24 of the Act which merit consideration of the claim.
Billy Anne Berdine Hendriks
80. In the case of Billy Anne Berdine Hendriks consider ing that a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from Mosselbay Hospital with clinical notes.
These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after being in a MVA. If
these reports are looked together with the Dagamaskop S APS accident report and
docket, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance with the
Act for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s view that
the claim cannot be rejected simply because of what RA F terms itemized tax invoice
from a medical provider; proof of payment of medical expenses; payslips pre and post
accident; proof of any other income; official documents confirming any disability grant;
employer’s certificate of injured service showing nat ure of employment . These cannot
be said to merit an outright rejection of the claim. This Court finds substantial
compliance with Section 24 of the Act which merit consideration of the claim.
Joslyn Cindy Petersen
81. In the case of Joslyn Cindy Petersen this Court consider s that a RAF 1 form
accompanied inter alia by a medical report from Mosselbay Hospital with clinical notes
was submitted . These notes indicate that plaintiff was presented to the hospital after
being in a MVA. If these reports are looked to gether with the Kwanonqaba SAPS
accident report, this Court cannot escape the view that there is substantial compliance
with the Act for purposes of RAF considering the merits of the claim. It is this Court’s
view that the claim cannot be rejected simply b ecause of what RAF terms itemized tax
invoice from a medical provider; proof of payment of medical expenses; official
documents confirming any disability grant . These cannot be said to merit an outright
rejection of the claim. This Court finds substantial compliance with Section 24 of the Act
which merit consideration of the claim.
Conclusion
82. In the result this Court finds that all these claims listed above substantially
comply with Section 24 of the Act and thus substantially comply with the procedural
requirements for a validly lodged claim in terms of section 24 of the Road Accident Fund
Act.
83. This Court holds that the lodged documents for these plaintiffs listed in this
matter furnish defendant with sufficient information to enable defendan t to investigate
and consider the plaintiffs’ claims.
84. This Court finds that defendant is entitled to refuse to accept claims which do not
comply with section 24. This Court also finds that defendant is not entitled to reject
claims which substantially com ply with section 24 given peculiar circumstances of each
case if the facts of the matter looked upon as a whole objectively leads to a finding of
substantial compliance with section 24. Consequently , any ancillary directives or
regulation cannot a s a matte r of law trump application of that provision.
85. This Court accepts that the decision to refuse claims is an administrative
decision. This fact alone does not, however, constrain plaintiffs from following any
cause of action or invoking remedies available to them in law to enforce their rights in
avenues other than those availed by PAJA reviews, as plaintiffs seem to have elected in
these cases.
86. It is this Court’s conclusion therefore that the special plea for all 16 plaintiffs in
these actions f alls to be dismissed .
Costs
87. It is trite that costs follows the result.
88. Wherefore the following order is made :
Order
IT IS ORDERED THAT :
1. The Special Plea in Henrico Jovihano Maarman V RAF (993/2023) is dismissed .
2. The Special Plea in Jakobus George v RAF (994/2023) is dismissed.
3. The Special Plea in Joslin Cindy Petersen v RAF (894/2023) is dismissed.
4. The Special Plea in Johanna Frans v RAF (18128/2023) is dismissed.
5. The Special Plea in Johannes Nombande v RAF (89 6/2023) is dismissed.
6. The Special Plea in Billy Anne Berdine Lamont v RAF (929/2023) is dismissed.
7. The Special Plea in Glanwill cederic Pickaan v RAF(18126/2023) is dismissed.
8. The Special Plea in Ambroze Regan Keffers v RAF (18125/2023) is dismissed.
9. The Special Plea in Rentia Velencia Sefoor v RAF(126/2024) is dismissed.
10. The Special Plea in Jacky Kannemeyer obo J[...] D[...] K[...](18090/2023) is
dismissed.
11. The Special Plea in Jacky Kannemeyer obo T[...] L[...] L[...] K[...] (991/2023) is
dismissed.
12. The Special Plea in Sydney Titus v RAF(895/2023) is dismissed.
13. The Special Plea in Jacky Kanne meyer v RAF (18089/2023) v is dismissed.
14. The Special Plea in Thulane Jacky Msimanga v RAF (104/2024) is dismissed.
15. The Special Plea in EC Phillips obo V[...] T P[...] (105/2024) is dismissed.
16. The Special Plea in David Carelse v RAF (992 /2023) is dismissed.
17. Defendant to pay costs of this stated case.
SST KHOLONG
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION,
CAPE TOWN
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs : Adv. C.H Botha
Instructed by: Attorney s: Cilliers and Associates
For the Defendant : Mr. F. Goosen
The State Attorney ,
Western Cape