Khomo v Road Accident Fund (00667/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1325 (15 November 2023)

Khomo v Road Accident Fund (00667/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1325 (15 November 2023)

The court held that, although the medical report section of the RAF1 form was not completed by the treating doctor or hospital superintendent as required by section 24(2)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, the private doctor who completed the report had access to the hospital records and was adequately informed about the plaintiff's injuries and treatment. The RAF1 form was lodged together with the hospital records and other documentation, providing the Fund with sufficient information to investigate the claim. The court found that the jurisdictional requirements for another medical practitioner to complete the form are directory, not peremptory. Substantial compliance with section...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1325
Parties
Plaintiff: Khomo Maleshoana Evelena; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Case Number
00667/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea Adjudication Prior to Merits
Outcome
Special plea dismissed; plaintiff's claim found not to have prescribed.
Judges
R. Strydom
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Substantial Compliance, Prescription, Medical Report Requirements
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Substantial Compliance Prescription 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khomo Maleshoana Evelena

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea Adjudication Prior to Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff substantially complied with section 24(2)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act when the medical report section of the RAF1 form was completed by a private doctor instead of the treating doctor or hospital superintendent.
  2. 2 Whether the Fund's objection to the validity of the claim precludes a finding of substantial compliance.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim has prescribed under section 23(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the medical report section of the RAF1 form was not completed by the treating doctor or hospital superintendent as required by section 24(2)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, the private doctor who completed the report had access to the hospital records and was adequately informed about the plaintiff's injuries and treatment. The RAF1 form was lodged together with the hospital records and other documentation, providing the Fund with sufficient information to investigate the claim. The court found that the jurisdictional requirements for another medical practitioner to complete the form are directory, not peremptory. Substantial compliance with section...

Court Disposition

Special plea dismissed; plaintiff's claim found not to have prescribed.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is postponed sine die.