South Africa Case Law

Maduse v Road Accident Fund (2019/6185)

Maduse v Road Accident Fund (2019/6185) [2025] ZAGPJHC 162 (18 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/6185

Judge

M V Noko

The court found that the plaintiff had substantially complied with the requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act, as the necessary information was provided in the RAF 1 form and supporting medical records. The absence of particulars of the insured vehicle was excused due to the hit and run nature of the accident. The defendant's plea of prescription was dismissed as unsustainable. The evidence established that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of a motor vehicle, and the plaintiff's account was credible and unchallenged by contrary evidence. The fact that the plaintiff was no…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Negligence
• Hit And Run
• Apportionment Of Damages

Moloi v Road Accident Fund (63711/2016)

Moloi v Road Accident Fund (63711/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1071 (30 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63711/2016

Judge

H W Theron

The High Court dismissed a Road Accident Fund claim after finding the plaintiff’s evidence improbable, inconsistent on dates, and unsupported by the records.

• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Hit And Run
• Single Witness Cautionary Rule
• Burden Of Proof
• Hospital Records Evidence
• Road-accident-fund

K.J.M v Road Accident Fund (20804/2017)

K.J.M v Road Accident Fund (20804/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 631 (19 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20804/2017

Judge

Pienaar

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not validly lodged within the prescribed two-year period for hit-and-run claims, as the accident was reported to the police six years after the incident and the lodgment letter lacked a Road Accident Fund stamp. The requirements of Regulation 2 were not met, specifically the obligation to report the accident within 14 days and to take reasonable steps to identify the driver or owner. In the absence of compliance with these statutory requirements, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant default judgment against the Road Accident Fun…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Prescription Of Claims
• Default Judgment
• Hit And Run
• Lodgment Requirements

Mbonambi v Road Accident Fund (64671/2019)

Mbonambi v Road Accident Fund (64671/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 455 (21 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64671/2019

Judge

Moshoana

The court refused to grant default judgment because the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory and lacked credibility. The times of the alleged accident conflicted between oral testimony, police records, and medical records. The plaintiff claimed to have reported the accident while allegedly hospitalised, and no explanation was provided for the absence of eyewitness or paramedic testimony. The requirements of Regulation 2 were not satisfied, as no evidence was presented of reasonable steps taken to identify the vehicle or driver. The medical records indicated heavy intoxication, raising doubt…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Hit And Run
• Default Judgment
• Burden Of Proof
• Regulation 2 Requirements

Lourens v Road Accident Fund (31816/2017)

Lourens v Road Accident Fund (31816/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 621 (23 August 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31816/2017

Judge

E Van der Schyff

The court held the Road Accident Fund liable after pre-trial admissions established insured-driver negligence and the defendant led no evidence. Quantum was postponed.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Hit And Run
• Onus Of Proof
• Contributory Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Costs Order

Matsenjwa v Road Accident Fund (2011/22051)

Matsenjwa v Road Accident Fund (2011/22051) [2012] ZAGPJHC 238 (29 November 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/22051

Judge

D S S Moshidi

The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable after a pedestrian was struck by an unidentified vehicle while returning to his parked car with warning triangles in place.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Negligence
• Hit And Run
• Liability Separation
• Factual And Legal Causation
• Road-accident-fund

Lockhat v Road Accident Fund (1859/06)

Lockhat v Road Accident Fund (1859/06) [2007] ZAECHC 62 (4 September 2007)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

1859/06

Judge

J C H Jansen

The court held that a pedestrian hit by a speeding car overtaking on the wrong side was not contributorily negligent and awarded the plaintiff costs.

• Contributory Negligence
• Road Accident Fund
• Hit And Run
• Reckless Driving
• Contributory-negligence
• Road-accident-fund