IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not reportable
Case no: 5814/2024
In the matter between:
CECILIA MATABA PEPENENE PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
Neutral citation: Pepenene v Road Accident Fund (5814/2024) [2026] ZAFSHC 272
(05 May 2026)
Coram: MAJOSI AJ
Heard: 25 November 2025
Delivered: 05 May 2026
Summary: Special pleas raised by defendant – non-compliance with s 4(1)
read with s 24 of Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (the Act) – premature
summons issued – prescription in terms of s 23 of the Act – special pleas dismissed
with costs.
1
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_______________________________________________________________________
1 The defendant’s special pleas are dismissed with costs on a party and party
scale.
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_______________________________________________________________________
Majosi AJ
[1] The plaintiff instituted a claim for damages arising from injuries sustained in a
motor vehicle accident on 06 September 2021, whilst being a passenger in a service
ambulance on a public road in Bloemfontein, Free State, namely Church Street. The
action was defended. T he defendant pleaded to the summons and raised three special
pleas namely non-compliance with s 24 of the Road Accident Fund 56 of 1956 (the Act),
the issuing of a premature summons and prescription. The matter was set down for trial
for two days. On the trial date, parties agreed that the special pleas be heard first. Due
to their potential dipositive nature, arguments pertaining to the special pleas were
heard. This is the basis of my adjudication.
[2] A brief background is as follows . The plaintiff, before issuing summons sent a
letter to the defendant on 10 May 2024 and lodged a claim for damages . Annexed
thereto was, a RAF 1 form, a certified copy of the plaintiff’s identity document, a special
power of an attorney, a consent form for access medical records , a SAPS accident
report, an affidavit in terms of s 19, various salary advices of the claimant and her
medical records.
[3] On 23 July 2024, the defendant caused an objection letter to be sent to the
plaintiff’s attorneys in that firstly, they failed to comply with the provisions of s 24 of the
Act, secondly summons was served prematurely as the plaintiff did not lodge a valid
claim and as per the period provided for in s 24(5) of the Act and lastly , that the claim
claim and as per the period provided for in s 24(5) of the Act and lastly , that the claim
had prescribed as the plaintiff failed to cure the objection within 3 years as required by
2
s 23(1) of the Act.
[4] The said objection was raised by the defendant in line with Board Notice 271 of
2022 as published in the G overnment Gazette number 46322 on 6 M ay 2022 being the
Stipulated Terms and Conditions Upon which C laims for C ompensation shall be
administered in terms of s 4 of the Act. This letter also indicated that the lodgment of the
claim is not accepted until such time claimant(plaintiff) corrects same.
[5] For the sake of completeness, t he actual objection included the following
complaints namely:
(a) that the medical section of RAF 1 form had not been properly completed in
terms of s 24(2) of the Act,
(b) a certified copy of the claimant’s identity document was required;
(c) the s 19 statement needed to refer to the date of the accident;
(d) paragraph 15 of the RAF 1 form requiring the claimant’s permission/consent to
obtain and inspect her medical records was not complete;
(e) the claim had not been completed in its entirety;
(f) clarity on the date of the incident;
(g) official accident report with a sketch plan or case docket had not been supplied;
(h) medical records were outstanding;
(i) pay slips pre and post-accident;
(j) employers’ certificate of injured service records; and
(k) invoices from a medical provider for past medical expens es and proof of
payment of medical expenses
[6] The plaintiff issued summons on the 14 of October 2024. The defendant filed
their plea on 14 March 2025. In July 2025, the plaintiff subsequently amended their
particulars of claim resulting in the defendant filing an amended plea in the very same
month raising the aforesaid special pleas.
More specifically, that they failed to comply
with the provisions of s 24 of the A ct, secondly summons was served prematurely as
the plaintiff did not lodge a valid claim and as per the period provided for in s 24(5) of
the Act and lastly , that the claim had prescribed as the plaintiff failed to cure the
the Act and lastly , that the claim had prescribed as the plaintiff failed to cure the
objection within three years as required by s 23(1) of the Act.
3
[7] By lodging an objection to the validity of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant
unequivocally indicated that they do not accept the documentation presented to them
due to non-compliance and returned all documentation provided.
1 The plaintiff was also
informed that prescription on her claim will only be interrupted once a compliant and
valid claim has been lodged and should summons be issued, a special plea would be
raised in line with the objection.
2
[8] Counsel for the plaintiff argued that substantial compliance had taken place as
the documents provided to the defendant allowed them to assess the merits of the
plaintiffs claim. To that end, I was referred to a litany of cases law in their heads of
argument. For the purpose of this judgment, I had regard to Pithey v Road Accident
Fund,
3 wherein in it was stated that although the submission of a claim form is
peremptory and the prescribed requirements concerning the completeness of the form
are directory, substantial compliance with such requirements suffices and that the test
for substantial compliance is an objective one. 4 It was thus submitted that the plaintiff
had substantially complied with the Act and that the defendant’s special pleas ought to
be dismissed with costs.
[9] Transversely thereto counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not
complied with the provisions of s 24 of the Act despite an objection being raised in
July 2024 alerting them to the deficiencies in the claim and what is actually required.
The defendant thus deploy ed the said notice to regulate how claimants lodge their
claims in order to assess if a particular claim should be accepted or not. The non-
compliance with the objections raised thus resulted not only in insufficient information
being placed at its disposal, but that the plaintiff prematurely issued summons.
Furthermore, due to this non- compliance, the claim had prescribed in terms of s 23(1)
Furthermore, due to this non- compliance, the claim had prescribed in terms of s 23(1)
read with s 4(1) of the Act as they did not correct same in terms of the required time
periods.
[10] It was submitted that in Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC And
1 RAF objection letter dated 23 July 2024, paras 3-4.
2 Ibid paras 5-6.
3 Pithey v Road Accident Fund [2014] ZASCA 55; 2014 (4) SA 112 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 324 (SCA).
4 Ibid para 19.
4
Others v Road Accident Fund and Others ,5 the defendant ( RAF) has successfully
obtained leave to appeal to the S upreme Court of Appeal after reconsideration was
granted. Furthermore , that the case of Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund 6 is
also awaiting adjudication in the Supreme Court of Appeal specifically pertaining to the
encumbered notice being reviewed and set aside with an order that claimants resubmit
their claims wherein objections were raised and claims were not accepted by the Fund.
Moreover, that all three special pleas are to be upheld with costs.
[11] Section 24 of the Act stipulates the specific procedure, forms and medical
reports that must accompany a claim for compensation. It also gives a time frame within
which a claimant has to respond to an objection raised by the F und, failing which, no
claim shall be enforceable by legal proceedings commenced by the service of summons
as per s 24(6) of the Act.
7
[12] In
Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC And Others v Road
Accident Fund and Others,8 the full court considered the Minister’s constitutional duties
in terms of s 7(2) of the C onstitution to respect promote and protect the B ill of R ights
and held that the RAF 1 form must not become an instrument that obstructs valid
claims. The court thus applied t he principles laid down in Road Accident Fund v
Busuku9 that the R AF1 form does not call for detailed information, but on the
interpretation of s s 24 and 25 of the Act , it calls for the claimant to provide sufficient
information to the Fund to investigate the claim.
[13] In the absence of public hearings and comment on the new RAF1 form, the full
court concluded that the Minister’s action constituted administrative action both the RAF
5 Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC And Others v Road Accident Fund and Others [2024]
ZAGPPHC 294; 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP).
6 Mautla & Others v Road Accident Fund & Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 1843; 2023 JDR 4259 (GP).
6 Mautla & Others v Road Accident Fund & Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 1843; 2023 JDR 4259 (GP).
7 ‘Section 24(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 provides:
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 as 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 party may at any time after such repudiation serve summons on the Fund or the
agent, as the case may be’
8 Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC And Others v Road Accident Fund and Others
[2024] ZAGPPHC 294; 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP) para 37.
9 Road Accident Fund v Busuku [2020] ZASCA 158; 2023 (4) SA 507 (SCA) paras 16-17.
5
1 and the Board Notice were unlawful and made appropriate orders in that regard.10 At
the time of hearing argument on this special plea, the RAF had obtained leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Appeal after reconsideration in terms of s 17(f) of the Superior
Court Act 10 of 2013, and the matter had been enrolled for hearing. More of this later.
[14] In my view, the plaintiff herein has substantially complied with the requirements
of s 24 of the Act for the following reasons. Firstly, it is so that the medical section of the
RAF 1 form had not been properly completed. The supporting documents however
indicate her actual medical records from Pel onomi and Netcare Hospital which, clearly
indicate that she was admitted to the former on 06 September 2021, which injuries she
sustained, what treatment she received and when she was discharged. This is more
than sufficient for the defendant to determine when she was admitted, to which facility
and which doctor treated her upon admission.
[15] Secondly, a certified copy of the plaintiff ’s identity document was provided
separately as attached to the letter dated 10 May 2024. This cannot thus still be
considered an issue. Thirdly , although paragraph 15 of the RAF1 requiring the consent
of the plaintiff to access and inspect her medical records is blank, she provided them
with an affidavit giving them permission to do so. The hospital records also give a clear
indication where the hospitals are and her full name and surname. Her unique account
number and reference number used at Pelonomi and Netcare is also visible on both for
further inspection and verification.
[16] Fourthly, the police accident report attached also not only gives an indication of
the reference number from the police station, but also provides an indication of the date
of the accident, where it occurred and who the drivers were together with their contact
details and a sketch plan. The affidavit of the plaintiff in terms of s 19 does indeed refer
details and a sketch plan. The affidavit of the plaintiff in terms of s 19 does indeed refer
to another date. However, when one reads the affidavit together with the accident report
form and her date of admission to Pelonomi Hospital, it is easy to surmise that the date
of the incident was 6 of September 2021. It must be remembered that the information
provided on the RAF 1 form is for the defendant to investigate a claim. A simple query
to verify the date of the incident could have been done with SAPS themselves.
10 Ibid para 12.
6
[17] Lastly, the plaintiff provided approximately 6 salary advices from the year 2020
until 2022. These salary advices give an indication as to when she was first employed
which speaks to her service record and if indeed she continued to work after the
accident. It is plain to see from those that she is still employed by the same employer so
there is no need for her to provide the defendant with employment certificates from
different organisations as she is still employed at the same place and still, according to
her salary advice, holding the same job title . I thus conclude that the special pleas
raised by the defendant have no merit and must be dismissed.
[18] Even if I am wrong in this conclusion, the Supreme Court of Appeal on 30 April
2026 in Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners’ Indemnity Insurance
Fund, NPC and Others
11 concluded that the Minister’s decision pertaining to the Board
notice 271 constitutes administrative action (under the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act 3 of 2000) which is unlawful and falls to be set aside. It dismissed the appeal
by the Fund. The order of the full court was confirmed with amendments to paragraph
vii to reflect the date of 30 September 2026, in that the Fund would have to:
‘(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 s 24 (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;
the RAF Act;
(vii) Claimants who sought the lodgement of their claims in terms of the Board Notice or the
RAF 1 Form, but lodgement 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 lodgement will enjoy the benefits of
such lodgement as from the date on which lodgement 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;
11 Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners’ Indemnity Insurance Fund, NPC and Others
[2026] ZASCA 63 para 50.
7
(ix) The Minister is ordered to adopt and publish a revised RAF 1 Form within 6 months
hereof.’12
[19] This effectively means that claimants such as the plaintiff in this matter is
afforded a period of time until 30 September 2026 to resubmit their claims to the RAF as
they will enjoy benefits of such lodgment as from the date on which lodgment was
sought by them and that they (RAF) is to take reasonable measures to inform the public
of this order. In addition to this, the Minister was ordered to adopt and publish a revised
RAF1 form within 6 months . The RAF contentions pertaining to the encumbered notice
was thus found to be wanting as well as objections raised in terms of this notice.
[20] It is trite that costs follow the result. Counsel for the defendant requested a
punitive cost order be made against the defendant given the nature of the special pleas
raised. Counsel for the defendant submitted that there were no real grounds for such an
order to be made as they were, as a litigant at liberty to raise special pleas. I hereby
exercise my discretion and will order that the defendant pays costs on a party and party
scale.
[21] Accordingly, it is ordered:
1 The defendant’s special pleas are dismissed with costs on a party and party
scale.
___________________
O R MAJOSI
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
12 Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC And Others v Road Accident Fund and Others [2024]
ZAGPPHC 294; 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP) para 55.
8
Appearances
For the plaintiff: E E Barlow
Instructed by: Mavuya Attorneys,
Bloemfontein
For the defendant: C Bornman
Instructed by: State Attorney,
Bloemfontein.