IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STA TE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between:
MPHUTHIMOEKETSIJAMES
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
1
Not reportable
Case no: 2671/2025
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Neutral citation: James v Road Accident Fund (2671/2025) [2026] ZAFSHC 380 (28
July 2026)
Coram: MPAMAAJ
Heard: 29 April 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email and released to SAFLI I. The date and time for hand
down is deemed to be 14h45 on 28 July 2027.
Summary: Road Accident Fund - special plea - validity of claim - s 24 of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 - objection period - 60 days - substantial
compliance - merits - passenger claim - negligence - tyre burst - default
proceedings.
2
ORDER
1 The special plea is dismissed.
2 The defendant shall be liable for payment of 100% of the plaintiffs proven or
agreed damages.
3 Quantum is separated and postponed sine die.
4 The costs shall be costs in the cause.
JUDGMENT
Mpama AJ
[1] This is a claim against the Road Accident Fund (the defendant) for damages
arising out of a motor vehicle accident. At the commencement of the proceedings, I was
informed that the matter was enrolled for the purpose of arguing the special plea and
hearing of the merits with the quatum to be seperated for later adjudication. I granted
seperation of the issues and the matter proceeded before me on special plea and merits.
Ms Lephoto appeared on behalf of the defendant. She advised that she was duly
instructed to argue the special plea but held no instructions to address the merits. She
further indicated that, insofar as the merits are concerned, the plaintiff would proceed on
the merits by way of default.
[2] On 13 January 2024, the plaintiff was travelling between Bothaville and
Allanridge. He was a passenger in a bakkie driven by the insured driver, Mr Thekiso,
when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained bodily injuries. On
12 December 2024, the plaintiff lodged his claim with the defendant. The claim was
lodged with the following documents: the plaintiffs copy of identitity document;
special power of attorney; consent form: an accident report; s 19(() affidavit; plaintiff's
salary advice; medical records and RAF 4 form. The defendant, by way of
correspondence dated 22 March 2025, lodged an objection. The defendant objected to
3
the validity of the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the claim did not meet all the
requirements for a valid claim in terms of section 24(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56
of 1996 (the Act) read with Board Notice 271 of 2022. In the said correspondentce , inter
alia, the defendant required the following documents from the plaintiff: medical reports
establishing the claimant's disability; employment certificate ; proof of injuries; official
documents confirming any disability; payslips pre and post accident; proof of any income
and an itemised tax invoice from a registered medical provider and/or hospital records for
past medical expenses.
[3] On 27 May 2025, the plaintiff commenced action proceedings against the
defendant. The defendant filed a plea and later on an amended plea wherein a special
plea was raised. The defendant requested condonation for the late filing of the amended
plea.The plaintiff informed the court that, despite the amendment being filed within a short
period before the hearing of the trial, the plaintiff condoned non-compliance with the court
rules and pleaded with the court to also do so as the best interest of the plaintiff would be
served if such condonation is granted. In the exercise of my discretion and in the interest
of justice, I granted the condonation.
[4] During the course of the hearing , the defendant contended that the plaintiff's
RAF1 form was defective in that it omitted certain particulars pertaining to the plaintiff's
medical report and further that it was not accompanied by the required hospital records.
It was argued that such non-compliance constituted a contravention of s 24(2) of the Act
and rendered the plaintiff's claim invalid. It was further submitted that the defendant had
formally objected to the claim and communicated such objection to the plaintiff by way of
correspondence dated 22 March 2025, which was served on the plaintiff. Notwithstanding
correspondence dated 22 March 2025, which was served on the plaintiff. Notwithstanding
the said objection and without furnishing any response thereto, the plaintiff proceeded to
issue summons .The defendant proposed that the special plea be upheld.
[5] The plaintiff, however , expressly denied that the defendant's objection was
delivered within the statutory period of 60 days, as required of the defendant. It was the
plaintiff's contention that the purported objection was filed way beyond the 60 day period
as it is dated 20 March 2025, which was never served on the plaintiff, as the plaitiff first
saw it when the defendant filed its special plea. The plaintiff argued that the objection is
of no legal force or effect and the defendant cannot at this point raise a special plea on
4
the validity of the plaintiffs claim. Lastly , with reference to authorities , it was argued , that
in the event the court finds there was a valid objection lodged by the defendant , it should
find, in consideration of the documents lodged with the claim , that the plaintiff substantially
compl ied with s 24 of the Act.
[6] Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act provides :
'(1) A claim for compensation and accompanying medical report under section 17(1) shall-
(a) be set out on a prescribed form, which shall be completed in all its particulars;
(b)
(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 or her 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 death
or the nature and treatment of the bodily injuries in respect of which the claim is made.'
[7] Section 24(5) of the Act provides:
'If the Fund or 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 agents as contemplated in subsection
(1 ), object to the valdity thereof, the claim shall be deemed to be valid in law in all respects.'
[8] On whether the defendant objected to the plaitiff s claim within the prescribed
60 day period or not I do not intend to dwell at length . First, when the plaintiff raised the
issue concerning the late objection by the defendant , the defendant neither denied the
issue concerning the late objection by the defendant , the defendant neither denied the
allegation nor furnished proof that such objection was duly served upon the plaintiff . In
my view this constitutes an admission by the defendant that the objection was filed out of
time and never served upon the plaintiff . Section 24(5) of the Act obliges the defenda nt
to lodge its objection within 60 days of the claim being lodged. It is my opin ion that the
defendant cannot by way of a special plea or outside the 60 day period , object to the
validity of the claim when it has failed to comp ly with the statutory time period . The claim
is deemed valid in law .The purported objection is invalid and of no legal effect. Therefore ,
the special plea stands to be dismissed as the defendant never filed a valid objection to
5
the claim of the plaintiff.
[9] Even in the event that I am not right on this issue, one must not lose sight of that
the purpose of the RAF1 form is to enable the defendant to investigate the claim. It
remains pertinent that this Division has in several decisions pronounced upon the very
issue in question, since the defendant habitually raised such special plea in prior
proceedings. This Court has held that there are peremptory requirements governing the
submission of claims whereas the prescribed requirements relating to the completeness
of the form are directory in nature and accordingly, substantial compliance with such
requirements was sufficient.1 In addition, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in its most
recent decision In Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners' Indemnity
Insurance Fund, NPC and Others2 has finally settled this issue. The SCA was required to
determine whether the court a quo had correctly reviewed and set aside two board
notices, including Board Notice 271 of 2022 (which introduced more stringent
requirements and mandated additional documentation for claims) issued by the Road
Accident Fund. The court, amongst other things confirmed that the Minister's decision to
issue Board Notice 271 of 2022, constituted an administrative action which was unlawful
and fell to be set aside. The court held further that the new requirements imposed upon
claimants created unjustified barriers to compensation. The RAF1 form, together with the
accompanying documentation lodged with. the defendant in these proceedings,
demonstrates that the plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of s 24 of
the Act.
[1 0] The matter proceeded on the merits by way of default. The plaintiff adduced
evidence to the effect that on 29 April 2026, he was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven
by his colleague, Mr Thekiso. The accident occurred in the morning at about 11 h00. The
vehicle was being driven along a tarred road when a sudden sound, consistent with the
vehicle was being driven along a tarred road when a sudden sound, consistent with the
bursting of a tyre was heard and the vehicle overturned. The driver was unable to control
the car and it overturned. He was unable to recall the exact sequence of events thereafter
but can recall that after the accident he laid on the ground having sustained severe injuries
'Jeje v Road Accident Fund (4628/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 265 (27 August 2024) para 11; Ranos! v Road Accident
Fund (6056/2023) (2024) ZAFSHC 310 (20 September 2024) paras 4-6 and 11-12 and Rasenya/o v Road Accident
Fund(958/2023) [2024}ZAFSHC 150 (1 July 2024) paras 11-14.
2 Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners' Indemnity Insurance Fund, NPC and Others (2026}
ZASCA 63; (2026] 2 ALL SA 489 (SCA) paras 33-34
6
on the head, ear, leg and shoulders. He was transported to Bothaville Hospital and later
transferred to Welkom Mediclinic. Due to the severity of the injuries sustained during the
motor vehicle accident he is unemployed. The insured driver is solely to blame for the
accident and was very negligent in operating the vehicle.
[11] The plaintiff argued that because this is a passenger's claim, the plaintiff must
only prove 1 % negligence on the part of the insured driver to succeed with a claim and
the unrebutted evidence proves that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle hence
the vehicle overturned after the tyre burst It is indeed so that this is a passenger's claim
and the plaintiff needs to prove only 1 % negligence on the part of the insured driver on a
balance of probabilities. Where an inference of negligence is to be drawn, once a plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant bears an evidential burden
to displace the inference of negligence to be drawn.
[12) Regarding a motor vehicle caused by a tyre burst, the court in Road Accident Fund
v Abrahams 3 said the following:
'(23] Jansen JA explained in Santam at 332D: "It can however happen that even in the instance
of blameless driving of a motor vehicle, injury or death may result, for example as a result of a
wheel which becomes dislodged. If the dislodgement, and the resultant death or injury is due to
negligence of the owner (for example because he did not tighten it properly) then the insurer of
the particular vehicle is liable because death or injury occurred, despite the blameless driving
(24] For present purposes it must be assumed that the respondent would prove his allegations
against the insured driver at the trial. It is clear that the insured motor vehicle was driven at the
time of the accident. The tyre burst was dependant on this fact. As a result, the causal connection
between the injuries suffered by the respondent and the driving is sufficiently real. In the
between the injuries suffered by the respondent and the driving is sufficiently real. In the
circumstances there is no merit in the appellant's contention.'
[13] Upon consideration of the evidence adduced, it is established that the plaintiff
was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by the insured driver at the time of the
accident. The evidence details that the vehicle overturned following the bursting of a tyre
and he attributes the cause of the accident to the negligent conduct of the driver. This
account of events remains unchallenged by the defendant. In my view, the plaintiff has
3 Road Accident Fund v Abrahams [2018] ZASCA 49; 2018 (5) SA 169 (SCA).
7
successfully demonstrated negligence on the part of the driver while no contributory
negligence can be ascribed to the plaintiff. Accordingly, liability for damages sustained by
the plaintiff rests entirely on the defendant.
[14] The general principle is that costs follow the event. There is no reason for me to
deviate from the general principle. The following order is made:
1 The special plea is dismissed.
2 The defendant shall be liable for payment of 100% of the plaintiff's proven or
agreed damages.
3 Quantum is separated and postponed sine die.
4 The defendant is ordered to pay plaintiffs costs to be on scale B in accordance
with Rule 67 A of Uniform Rules of this Honourable Court.
LMPAMA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the plaintiff:
Instructed by:
For the defendant:
Instructed by:
EE Barlow
Mavuya Attorneys
Bloemfontein
M Lephotho
The State Atorney ,
Bloemfontein.
8