Busuku v Road Accident Fund (3055/2014) [2016] ZAECMHC 30; [2016] 3 All SA 498 (ECM); 2017 (1) SA 71 (ECM) (9 June 2016)

Busuku v Road Accident Fund (3055/2014) [2016] ZAECMHC 30; [2016] 3 All SA 498 (ECM); 2017 (1) SA 71 (ECM) (9 June 2016)

The court held that the submission of a blank medical report on form RAF1 does not constitute compliance with section 24(1)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act and Regulation 7. The requirement to submit the prescribed form, completed in all its particulars, is peremptory and not directory. Hospital notes cannot substitute for the prescribed medical report, and the issue of substantial compliance only arises in respect of the content of a properly submitted form, not in its absence. The deeming provision in section 24(5) of the Act does not apply where there is total non-compliance, such as the failure to submit a completed medical report. As a result, the plaintiff's claim became prescribed...

Citation
[2016] ZAECMHC 30
Parties
Plaintiff: Zuko Busuku; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
3055/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea – Prescription of Claim Under Road Accident Fund Act
Outcome
The defendant's Special Plea is upheld and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Alkema
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Prescription of Claims, Statutory Compliance, Medical Report Requirements
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Prescription of Claims Statutory Compliance Medical Report Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zuko Busuku

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea – Prescription of Claim Under Road Accident Fund Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the submission of a blank medical report on form RAF1 constitutes compliance with section 24(1)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act and Regulation 7.
  2. 2 Whether hospital notes can substitute for the prescribed medical report under the Act and Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the deeming provision in section 24(5) of the Act is triggered in the absence of a completed medical report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the submission of a blank medical report on form RAF1 does not constitute compliance with section 24(1)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act and Regulation 7. The requirement to submit the prescribed form, completed in all its particulars, is peremptory and not directory. Hospital notes cannot substitute for the prescribed medical report, and the issue of substantial compliance only arises in respect of the content of a properly submitted form, not in its absence. The deeming provision in section 24(5) of the Act does not apply where there is total non-compliance, such as the failure to submit a completed medical report. As a result, the plaintiff's claim became prescribed...

Court Disposition

The defendant's Special Plea is upheld and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's Special Plea is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.