Mlamli v Johnstone NO and Another (955/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 40; 2024 (4) SA 611 (ECMk) (9 April 2024)

Mlamli v Johnstone NO and Another (955/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 40; 2024 (4) SA 611 (ECMk) (9 April 2024)

The court found that the applicant's claim was at risk of prescription, rendering the matter urgent. The Road Accident Fund acted unlawfully by refusing to accept and acknowledge receipt of the applicant's lodgement documents, as it has no legislative authority to do so under the Road Accident Fund Act. The prescribed requirements for claim forms are directory, and substantial compliance suffices. The Fund's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 and the new RAF 1 form was misplaced, as these were declared unlawful and set aside by the Full Bench in Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC & Others v The Road Accident Fund and Others. The Fund is obliged to accept, administer, and...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Ndlumbini Mlamli; Respondent: Lance Johnstone, Regional Manager, Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2024
Case Number
955/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; declaratory relief and costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Notyesi
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Lodgement of Claims, Substantial Compliance, Prescription, Board Notice 271 2022
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Road Accident Fund Act Lodgement of Claims Substantial Compliance Prescription Board Notice 271 2022

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndlumbini Mlamli

Applicant

Lance Johnstone, Regional Manager, Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the Road Accident Fund was empowered to refuse to accept or receive delivery of lodgement documents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim was at risk of prescription, rendering the matter urgent. The Road Accident Fund acted unlawfully by refusing to accept and acknowledge receipt of the applicant's lodgement documents, as it has no legislative authority to do so under the Road Accident Fund Act. The prescribed requirements for claim forms are directory, and substantial compliance suffices. The Fund's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 and the new RAF 1 form was misplaced, as these were declared unlawful and set aside by the Full Bench in Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC & Others v The Road Accident Fund and Others. The Fund is obliged to accept, administer, and...

Court Disposition

Application granted; declaratory relief and costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The provisions of the rules relating to time, forms, and manner of service are dispensed with; the matter is dealt with as urgent.
  • The respondents' refusal to accept delivery of lodgement documents under the purported reason of non-compliance with Board Notice 271 of 2022 or any other basis not contemplated under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is declared unlawful.