South Africa Case Law

Basson v Road Accident Fund (5213/2021)

Basson v Road Accident Fund (5213/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 229 (30 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5213/2021

Judge

Salie

The court found that the plaintiff is entitled to recover past hospital and medical expenses from the Road Accident Fund, including those paid by her medical aid scheme, Discovery Health. The defendant's reliance on the Medical Schemes Act and section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act was rejected, as the contractual arrangement between the plaintiff and Discovery Health to reimburse the scheme upon recovery from the RAF is valid and enforceable. The court emphasized that the RAF Act is compensatory in nature and aims to restore the plaintiff to her pre-accident financial position. The provisions of th…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Schemes Act
• Prescribed Minimum Benefits
• Double Compensation
• Subrogation
• Patrimonial Loss

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Centurion East and Another (122825/2023)

Road Accident Fund v Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Centurion East and Another (122825/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 149 (19 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

122825/2023

Judge

de Vos

The court held that the RAF's argument for a stay of execution is untenable and contrary to binding precedent. The legal relationships between claimants, medical schemes, and the RAF ensure that double compensation does not occur, as claimants are contractually obliged to reimburse their medical schemes upon receipt of payment from the RAF. Section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act does not exclude liability for past medical expenses paid by medical schemes, as these agreements are insurance contracts, not champertous arrangements. The Supreme Court of Appeal in RAF v Abdool-Carrim and subsequent cases…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Scheme Reimbursement
• Double Compensation
• Res Inter Alios Acta

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021)

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 305 (1 December 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1736/2020; 9773/2021

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that the Road Accident Fund remains liable to compensate claimants for past medical expenses, even where those expenses have already been paid by private medical aid schemes. The contractual obligation of claimants to reimburse their medical aid upon recovery from the RAF does not fall within the exclusionary provisions of section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act, as such agreements are not champertous and do not undermine the statutory purpose. The RAF's reliance on regulations 7 and 8 of the Medical Schemes Act to preclude subrogation and bar recovery was rejected, as there is no auth…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Aid Subrogation
• Past Medical Expenses
• Double Compensation
• Statutory Exclusion
• Punitive Costs

Nosana v Road Accident Fund (1092/2021)

Nosana v Road Accident Fund (1092/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 354 (8 September 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1092/2021

Judge

P E Molitsoane

The court held that the defendant's liability to the plaintiff arises from section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act and is not affected by the plaintiff's contractual relationship with a medical aid scheme. The defendant remains liable for past medical expenses, even if those expenses were paid by the medical aid. The internal directive relied upon by the defendant is inconsistent with the enabling statute and unlawful. The principle of double compensation does not apply to private medical aid benefits, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of past medical expenses from…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Aid Benefits
• Past Medical Expenses
• Double Compensation
• Statutory Liability

Kenjani and Others v Minister of Police (21234/11)

Kenjani and Others v Minister of Police (21234/11) [2023] ZAWCHC 65 (30 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21234/11

Judge

Henney

The court held that the defendant is bound by the joint instructions given to the actuary, which were agreed upon by both parties and not repudiated in a timely manner. These instructions, including the use of a 2:1:1 apportionment ratio and a 5% contingency deduction for past losses, formed the basis for the actuarial report and quantum determination. The court found no evidence to justify a higher contingency deduction or deviation from the standard apportionment. Furthermore, the court ruled that bursaries provided by NSFAS are constitutional entitlements and do not amount to double compen…

Source excerpt

• Loss Of Support
• Quantum Of Damages
• Joint Expert Instructions
• Contingency Deductions
• Constitutional Right To Education
• Double Compensation

Vleissentraal Bethlehem (Pty) Ltd v Konsortium Operations (Pty) Ltd and Others (1611/2022; 1728/2022)

Vleissentraal Bethlehem (Pty) Ltd v Konsortium Operations (Pty) Ltd and Others (1611/2022; 1728/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 19 (31 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1611/2022; 1728/2022

Judges

Loubser, Naidoo

The court upheld an arbitration award in part, but reduced the damages by R2.5 million to reflect a settlement already received, avoiding double compensation.

• Arbitration Review
• Ultra Vires
• Damages Quantification
• Double Compensation
• Agency Misrepresentation
• Arbitration-review

Malgas v Road Accident Fund (126/2020)

Malgas v Road Accident Fund (126/2020) [2022] ZAECQBHC 50 (1 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

126/2020

Judge

D van Zyl

The court held that payment of the plaintiff's past hospital and medical expenses by her medical aid does not relieve the Road Accident Fund of its obligation to compensate her. The medical aid's payment is a collateral benefit akin to insurance, for which the plaintiff paid premiums and is contractually obliged to reimburse the scheme upon recovery from the Fund. The RAF Act does not expressly or by implication exclude such benefits from compensation. The plaintiff does not receive double compensation, as the medical aid acquires a right of subrogation to recover its outlay from the plaintif…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Collateral Benefits
• Medical Aid Payments
• Double Compensation
• Subrogation
• Patrimonial Loss

Shushu v Member of The Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Province (64532/2017)

Shushu v Member of The Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Province (64532/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 805 (26 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64532/2017

Judge

Mbongwe

High Court damages case on medical negligence after a motor accident, addressing double compensation and how to value overlap with RAF compensation.

• Medical Negligence
• Double Compensation
• Quantification Of Damages
• Road Accident Fund
• Prescription
• Vicarious Liability

Mtila v Road Accident Fund (73306/2014)

Mtila v Road Accident Fund (73306/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 294 (12 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

73306/2014

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The High Court held that disability benefits causally linked to the plaintiff’s accident injuries had to be deducted from his loss-of-earnings award.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Disability Benefits Deduction
• Double Compensation
• Contingency Deduction
• Road-accident-fund

Kapa v RAF (1414/2013)

Kapa v RAF (1414/2013) [2018] ZALMPPHC 67 (7 December 2018)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1414/2013

Judge

G.C Muller

The court found that the disability grant received by the plaintiff was paid as a direct result of her disability caused by the motor vehicle accident, which also formed the basis of her claim for loss of earnings. The grant was not a charitable benefit but a form of financial assistance provided by the state in terms of its constitutional obligation. There was a close causal link between the grant and the loss of earnings, and failing to deduct the grant would result in double compensation. Public policy, fairness, and justice demand that overcompensation from public funds be avoided, especi…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Earnings
• Collateral Source Rule
• Social Assistance Act
• Double Compensation