Road Accident Fund v Duma, Road Accident Fund v Kubeka, Road Accident Fund v Meyer, Road Accident Fund v Mokoena (202/2012, 64/2012, 164/2012, 131/2012) [2012] ZASCA 169; [2013] 1 All SA 543 (SCA); 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA) (27 November 2012)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to entertain claims for general damages where the prescribed procedure for serious injury assessment under the Road Accident Fund Regulations was not followed.
2. 2 Whether the Fund's rejection of the serious injury assessment reports (RAF 4 forms) could be disregarded due to delay or insufficient reasons.
3. 3 Whether a medical practitioner must physically examine the claimant for purposes of the assessment under regulation 3(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims for general damages where the prescribed procedure for serious injury assessment under the Road Accident Fund Regulations was not followed. The determination of 'serious injury' is an administrative function conferred on the Fund, and its decision stands unless set aside on review or overturned in an internal appeal. The Fund's rejection of the RAF 4 forms, even if delayed or lacking reasons, could not be disregarded by the court. The regulations require a physical examination by a medical practitioner, and occupational therapists are not qualified to perform the assessment. The narrative test for...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; High Court orders set aside; claims for general damages postponed pending compliance with regulation 3; no order as to costs on special pleas and general damages.

Orders

• The appeals in all four matters are upheld with no order as to costs.
• The orders of the High Court are set aside and replaced with orders postponing the plaintiffs' claims for general damages sine die, pending compliance with regulation 3.