Tsham v Road Accident Fund (622/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 76 (10 December 2024)

Tsham v Road Accident Fund (622/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 76 (10 December 2024)

The court found that the defendant's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 was ill-founded, as the notice and the prescribed RAF 1 form had been declared unlawful and set aside by a full court of the Gauteng Division. The defendant did not appeal that decision, and no contrary submissions were advanced. The defendant's objection to the validity of the claim was raised more than a year after summons was issued and well outside the sixty-day period prescribed by section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The statutory effect is that, even if the claim was not fully compliant, the defendant's failure to object within sixty days rendered the claim valid in law. Accordingly, the defence of...

Citation
[2024] ZAECQBHC 76
Parties
Plaintiff: Mziwakhe Emmanuel Tsham; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2024
Case Number
622/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits—separation of Compliance With Road Accident Fund Act
Outcome
Defendant's defence of non-compliance dismissed; defendant liable for 100% of proven damages; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Compliance With Statutory Requirements, Valid Lodgment of Claim, Board Notice 271 of 2022, Section 24 Objection Period
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Compliance With Statutory Requirements Valid Lodgment of Claim Board Notice 271 of 2022 Section 24 Objection Period

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mziwakhe Emmanuel Tsham

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits—separation of Compliance With Road Accident Fund Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996, in lodging his claim.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's objection to compliance, based on Board Notice 271 of 2022, is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's objection, raised more than sixty days after lodgment, precludes it from disputing compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 was ill-founded, as the notice and the prescribed RAF 1 form had been declared unlawful and set aside by a full court of the Gauteng Division. The defendant did not appeal that decision, and no contrary submissions were advanced. The defendant's objection to the validity of the claim was raised more than a year after summons was issued and well outside the sixty-day period prescribed by section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The statutory effect is that, even if the claim was not fully compliant, the defendant's failure to object within sixty days rendered the claim valid in law. Accordingly, the defence of...

Court Disposition

Defendant's defence of non-compliance dismissed; defendant liable for 100% of proven damages; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant’s defence of non-compliance by the plaintiff with the requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996, is dismissed, with costs.
  • The defendant shall be liable for 100% of such damages as plaintiff is able to prove arising out of injuries sustained by him in the collision in which he was involved on 9 November 2020.