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 CAPE DIVISION, GQEBERHA)
CASE NO: 224/2024
In the matter between:
TAAHIRA CASTER Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
MAKAULA J:
A. Introduction.
[1] This application is pursuant to an objection by the defendant in terms of
section 24 (5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 1, (the Act). The objection dated 17
September 2023, is that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for a
substantially compliant and valid claim by failing to attach to his RAF 1 form a
‘certified copy the Deceased or the injured Identity Document and Actuarial report’.
The defendant filed a special plea contending that the claim prescribed on 13
November 2023, three years after the plaintiff failed to cure the defect in lodging its
claim. The defendant denies that it did not comply with the provisions of section
24(5) of the Act on various grounds that shall be dealt with below.
B. The merits.
[2] The parties agreed on a stated case in terms of the Uniform Rules. The stated
case reads.
“1. The plaintiff was born on 17 July 1978.
2. Plaintiff was married to the late Anwar Caster (“the deceased”) who
died in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 14 November 2020.
3. That the deceased had a legal duty to support plaintiff during his
lifetime and did in fact so support him.
4. That the plaintiff has instituted an action against defendant wherein
she claims for loss of maintenance and support on behalf of herself as
well as her 2 minor children, M[…] and T[…].
5. That the plaintiffs submitted a RAF 1 form to defendant undercover of
a letter sent by her attorney to Defendant dated 1 st August 2023 and
which was sent by registered mail to defendant on 4 th August 2023. A
copy of the letter and RAF 1 form and documents annexed thereto
and documents are contained in a bundle of documents which will be
handed up, by agreement.
6. That the documents referred to in the said letter were attached to the
RAF1 form.
7. That Defendant sent an objection letter dated 17 September 2023.
8. That the Plaintiff issued summons which was served on Defendant on
8 February 2024.
9. That the Plaintiff alleged that she has complied with all the
8 February 2024.
9. That the Plaintiff alleged that she has complied with all the
requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (“the Act).
1 56 of 1996.
10. That the Defendant now contends that Plaintiffs claim against it has
prescribed.
11. That the Defendant has conceded that the collision in which the
deceased was involved was caused by the negligent driving of the
insured driver.
12. At a copy of the initial RAF 1 form (the 2008 1 RAF form) is annexed
to the bundle of documents to be handed up, by agreement”.
C. The issues.
[3] There are two issues to be decided, and they are both dependent on one
legal principle, that is whether the plaintiff has sub stantially complied with the
provisions of section 24 of the Act.
[4] Firstly, the plaintiff proved that the lodged documents contained the certified
identity document of the deceased. That much could not be denied by the defendant.
That puts the issue of the identity document to rest.
[5] The remaining issue is whether the plaintiff was non -compliant for want of
failing to include an actuarial report.
D. Contention by the parties.
[6] The plaintiff contended that it was not a valid requirement that th e natural
report be furnished with the lodgement of the claim documents. It contended further
that the Board Notice no 271 of 2022 (the Board Notice), which was adopted on the
6th of May 2022 and published in the Government Gazette no 46322 on 6 th May 2022
has been declared invalid in Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and
Others v Road Accident Fund and Others 2 (Legal Practitioners).
[7] The plaintiff further held that the form RAF1 prescribed by the minister of
transport and published in The Gazette on 6 th May 2022 was reviewed, declared
unlawful and set aside. Therefore, so the argument went, the 2008 form RAF 1
prescribed form contemplated in section 24(1)(a) of the Act would be deemed to be
2 Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others,
Case No. 46038/2022 [2024] ZAGPPHC 294; 2024 (4) SA 595 (GP) delivered on 20 March 2024.
RAF 1 third party claim form and in it there is no mention of an Actuarial report. The
plaintiff argued that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of
section 24 of the Act.
[8] The defendant submitted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions
of section 24 of the Act, which require that a claim for compensation and
accompanying medical report under section 17(1)(a) be set out in the prescribed
form, which shall be completed in all its particulars. The defendant argued that the
plaintiff failed to lodge a claim that is substantially compliant and therefore it is
invalid. The defendant contended that the plaintiff ought to have cured the objection
before 13th November 2023 which was when prescription set in.
E. Analysis.
[9] The issue of non-compliance with section 24 of the Act, the Board Notice and
the compliance with the RAF form 1 have been decided, both in this court and in
other Divisions.3
[10] It is apposite that I should deal with the relevant portion of the letter relied
upon by the defendant and it reads; ‘1. To administer claims effectively and efficiently the
Road Accident Act (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 The Government Gazette no 46322 on 6 may 2022. The Terms and Conditions,
read with section 24 of the Act stipulate that what documents must be must accompa ny the
claim documentation when submitting a claim for compensation.’ As aforesaid, the claim
based on this Board Notice was repudiated on the basis that it is non -compliant
because of failure to enclose a certified copy of the deceased identity document a nd
the Actuarial report. The issue of the identity document has been dealt with, and I
found there was compliance thereof.
found there was compliance thereof.
[11] I have had regard to the Gauteng judgment in Legal Practitioners Indemnity
Insurance Fund and Others relied upon by the defenda nt. The full court after
reviewing the relevant sections of the Act and finding that the Minister of Transport’s
action constituted an administrative decision correctly found that the publication in
3 Legal Practitioners, ibid; Tsham v RAF Case No. 622/2023 [2024] ZAECQBHC 76 delivered on 10th
December 2024.
Government Gazette of the RAF form 1, fell to be reviewed and set aside. I agree
with the reasoning and finding setting aside the decision and declaring it unlawful.
[12] In respect of the Board Notice issued by the defendant, the court in Legal
Practitioners found as follows; ‘ 44. Whatever the scope of the pow er to administer a
claim, it does not extend to the making of regulations to prescribe what the form must
contain to lodge a claim. Yet that is what the Board Notice does. It is an unlawful
encroachment upon the powers of the Minister conferred by section 24 of the RAF Act.
Hence the Board Notice is unlawful.’ I agree with the reasoning behind this conclusion
and echo this decision. Similar sentiments and approval of this judgment were
expressed by the judgment of this court in Tsham v RAF referred to above.
[13] In RAF v Busuku 4 the court said, ‘The RAF 1 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 RAF 1 form requires the disclosure of information to guide and facilitate
the investigation ’. Having had regard to the omission of the Actuarial report by the
plaintiff under the circumstances, I cannot non - suited the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
through the other documentation or information attached substantially complied with
the provisions of section 24 of the Act. The Actuarial calculation is only relevant to
the quantum. It has nothing to do with the investig ation of the claim. The plaintiff has
therefore substantially complied with the requirements of the Act.
1. Consequently, I make the following order:
(a) The special plea is dismissed with costs and such costs to include
costs of counsel on Scale B.
_______________________________
M MAKAULA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
4[2020] ZASCA 158; 2023 (4) SA 507 (SCA) at para. 16.
For the Applicant : Adv Schubart SC
Instructed by : GOLBERG & DE VILLIERS INC.
For the Respondent : Ms Swartz
Instructed by: : STATE ATTORNEY
Date heard : 08 October 2025
Judgment delivered : 30 October 2025