Case note: Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners’ Indemnity Insurance Fund, NPC and Others (1106/2024; 1479/2024) [2026] ZASCA 63; [2026] 2 All SA 489 (SCA) (30 April 2026)
On 30 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed, with costs, an appeal prosecuted by the Road Accident Fund against a decision of the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria. The result: the more onerous RAF 1 claim form introduced through Board Notices 271 and 302 of 2022 is invalid, and the position reverts to the RAF 1 form prescribed under the 2008 regulations.
Background
The RAF 1 form is the prescribed document a claimant must submit to the Road Accident Fund to access compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. Historically, its contents were governed by the 2008 regulations.
In 2021 the RAF attempted to impose stricter lodgement requirements through internal directives and board notices. Those attempts were successfully challenged: the High Court interdicted their implementation and declared invalid a regulation that purported to empower the RAF itself to amend the claim form.
Undeterred, in May 2022 the RAF introduced stricter requirements again, through Board Notice 271, prescribing additional compulsory documentation for a valid claim. After it was acknowledged internally that the power to make regulations resides with the Minister, the RAF sought the Minister’s approval, and the Minister issued Board Notice 302, publishing a revised RAF 1 form under his regulation-making powers.
Both notices were challenged on the basis that the RAF had unlawfully usurped the Minister’s powers and that the Minister had failed to exercise his own powers lawfully. The respondents contended that the new requirements created unjustified barriers to compensation, undermining the Act’s purpose of providing social security to road accident victims. The full court upheld the challenge and set both notices aside.
The SCA’s findings
On appeal, the key question was whether the decisions constituted “administrative action” under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). The SCA held that they did: the Minister’s decision involved the exercise of public power and had a direct, adverse effect on claimants’ rights by imposing additional requirements affecting access to compensation.
The Court found that the Minister failed to comply with PAJA’s procedural requirements, including public consultation, and that there was no evidence of an independent, rational decision-making process – the Minister appeared simply to have endorsed the RAF’s proposal without proper consideration. The decision was accordingly unlawful under both PAJA and the principle of legality.
Board Notice 271 depended on the Minister’s approval for its legal effect and could not stand independently; once the Minister’s decision was set aside, the board notice necessarily fell away. The RAF’s argument that the outcome would worsen administrative inefficiencies was given short shrift: such concerns cannot justify unlawful measures that restrict access to statutory compensation.
What this means in practice
- Claims must be lodged on the RAF 1 form as prescribed under the 2008 regulations. The additional compulsory documentation introduced by Board Notice 271 is no longer a requirement for a valid claim.
- Repudiations or objections to the validity of lodgement based on non-compliance with the 2022 requirements should be revisited – particularly where an objection to substantial compliance was raised within the statutory window.
- Practitioners should audit pending matters in which the Fund disputed valid lodgement on the strength of the 2022 form, as this may affect both the merits of the objection and the running of prescription.
- The judgment is the second time the RAF’s attempts to tighten lodgement requirements have been struck down, and it confirms that any future amendment of the claim form must come from the Minister, exercised lawfully, rationally and after public participation.
Our view
This judgment reaffirms a principle that runs through recent RAF jurisprudence: the Act is social legislation, and access to compensation may not be narrowed by administrative shortcut. For claimants, the practical barrier of the 2022 documentation requirements has been removed. For practitioners, the decision provides firm ground to challenge repudiations premised on the invalid form – but prescription continues to run, so affected matters should be actioned now.
If your RAF claim was rejected on the basis of incomplete lodgement documentation, contact AC De Sousa Attorneys for an assessment of your matter.
Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Every matter turns on its own facts. Consult an attorney before acting on anything stated here.
