Machekera v Road Accident Fund (2024/023488) [2025] ZAGPPHC 418 (1 January 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 418
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Matsemela
- Case number
- 2024/023488
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Matsemela
- Case number
- 2024/023488
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Road Accident Fund had furnished a statutory undertaking in 2015 to pay for the applicant's care and treatment following injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The RAF paid for several years and only ceased payment based on a recent internal directive, which does not apply to finalised claims. The Mudawu judgment confirms that foreigners' claims are covered by the RAF legislation. The RAF's attempt to rescind the order is without merit, as it is bound by its prior undertaking and cannot rely on internal directives to avoid its statutory obligations. The application for rescission is dismissed, and costs are awarded against the RAF on an attorney and own client scale.
Court disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale.
Orders
- The application for rescission is dismissed.
- The Road Accident Fund is to pay the costs on an attorney and own client scale.
02
Material facts
Parties
Beath Machekera
Applicant Counsel: Adv AA De WetRoad Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: Adv L Peter03
Procedural history
Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Prior Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Road Accident Fund is entitled to rescind the order granted by Cowen J on 19 March 2024.
- 02
Whether the statutory undertaking by the Road Accident Fund to pay for the applicant's care remains binding despite internal directives.
- 03
Whether the applicant, as a foreign national, is excluded from compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the Road Accident Fund gave an irrevocable statutory undertaking in 2015 to pay for the applicant's care following injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The applicant argues that the RAF paid for several years and only ceased payment based on a recent internal directive, which is not applicable to finalised claims. The applicant relies on the Mudawu judgment, which confirms that foreigners' claims are covered by the RAF legislation. The applicant submits that the RAF has waived any right to refuse payment and must continue to honour its undertaking.
- Respondent
- The respondent, Road Accident Fund, seeks rescission of the order granted by Cowen J, arguing that recent internal directives exclude foreigners from coverage under the RAF legislation. The RAF claims that its statutory obligation does not extend to the applicant due to his foreign status and relies on the directive to justify discontinuing payment. The RAF opposes the application and requests that the order be set aside.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
A statutory undertaking to pay for the treatment and care of an injured claimant is binding and irrevocable once given, and must be honoured by the Road Accident Fund.
- 02
Road Accident Fund v Mudawu and Others (0117 95/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 655
Internal directives or memoranda issued by the Road Accident Fund do not override statutory obligations or undertakings already made to claimants.
- 03
Road Accident Fund v Mudawu and Others (0117 95/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 655
Foreign nationals are entitled to compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act for claims that have been finalised.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Road Accident Fund had furnished a statutory undertaking in 2015 to pay for the applicant's care and treatment following injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The RAF paid for several years and only ceased payment based on a recent internal directive, which does not apply to finalised claims. The Mudawu judgment confirms that foreigners' claims are covered by the RAF legislation. The RAF's attempt to rescind the order is without merit, as it is bound by its prior undertaking and cannot rely on internal directives to avoid its statutory obligations. The application for rescission is dismissed, and costs are awarded against the RAF on an attorney and own client scale.
Obiter and limits
- The RAF's internal directive applies only to future claims and cannot be used to escape liability for undertakings already made.
- There is no justification for the indigent applicant to be out of pocket due to the RAF's failure to honour its statutory obligations.
Court disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale.
- The application for rescission is dismissed.
- The Road Accident Fund is to pay the costs on an attorney and own client scale.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 2024/023488
In the matter between:
BEATH
MACHEKERA
APPLICANT
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
RESPONDENT
In re:
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
APPLICANT
And
BEATHA
MACHEKERA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MATSEMELA AJ
1. The applicant in the main application is a quadriplegic, incontinent, and has been cared for at the Ann Harding Cheshire home since 2016. The RAF paid the Ann Harding Cheshire Home until February 2024.
2. On 19 March 2024 Cowen J ordered that the respondent ('' the RAF") make payment of fees which the applicant owes to the Harding Cheshire Home from March 2024 onwards.
3. The RAF failed to comply with the order of 19 March 2024. After facing an application for contempt of Court, the RAF belatedly seeks a rescission of the Cowen J Judgment.
4. The respondent has opposed the application by filling an answering affidavit.
5. The RAF has not filed a replying affidavit.
6. The basis of the Cowen J order is the undertaking that the RAF furnished on 25 November 2015 already.The RAF gave a statutory undertaking to pay the expenses of the treatment of injuries and care of the applicant, which arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred as far back as 19 October 2015. The undertaking is that RAF '' shall compensate" the claimant for costs that have been incurred.
7. As stated, the RAF paid for some years, but then reneged.
Seemingly the RAF was moved to discontinue payment, on the basis of the recent directive, that a foreigner's claim should not be covered under the RAF legislation.
8. The full Bench judgment in the matter of Road Accident Fund v Mudawu and Others (0117 95/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 655 (9 JULY)
is clear that a foreigner 's claims are covered, Also, the memo/ directive by the RAF applies to future claims, not finalised claims. The RAF has clearly given an irrevocable undertaking.
9. Applicant anticipates that because of the Modawu judgment, the RAF will not proceed with the application for rescission also, the RAF is clearly bound to continue honouring the undertaking it gave years ago and has implemented. It has waived any rights it may have had not to pay.
10. Counsel for Respondent argues that the rescission application dismissed with attorney and client costs. There is no reason for the indigent applicant to be out of pocket. I agree. I therefore make the following order.
Order
1. The application for rescission dismissed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the costs on an attorney and own client scale.
JMOLEFE
MATSEMELA
Acting Judge of the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 10 H 00 on 3 April 2025
HEARD ON 21 January 2025
FOR THE
APPLICANT ADV AA De WET
INSTRUCTED
BY
STEVE MERCHAK ATTORNEYS
FOR THE RESPONDENT
ADV L PETER
INSTRUCTED
BY
SCHAAFSMAATTORNEYS
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.