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

Machi v Road Accident Fund (2020/12687)

Machi v Road Accident Fund (2020/12687) [2025] ZAGPJHC 445 (9 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/12687

Judge

T Ngano

The High Court granted leave to appeal in a Road Accident Fund dispute over past medical expenses paid by a medical scheme, finding compelling reasons and prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Collateral Benefits
• Subrogation
• Medical Scheme Payments
• Leave-to-appeal

Discovery Health (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023-117206)

Discovery Health (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2023-117206) [2025] ZAGPPHC 363 (9 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-117206

Judges

Mlambo JP, Opperman J, Bam J

The High Court granted Discovery Health leave to appeal against a majority judgment concerning RAF directives, res judicata, standing, and related recovery principles.

• Leave To Appeal
• Res Judicata
• Subrogation
• Standing
• Medical Expenses Recovery
• Superior Courts Act

Discovery Health (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Another (2023/117206)

Discovery Health (Pty) Ltd v Road Accident Fund and Another (2023/117206) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1303; [2025] 2 All SA 113 (GP); 2025 (3) SA 225 (GP) (17 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/117206

Judges

Mlambo JP, Opperman J, Bam J

The majority held that the RAF did not breach the Mbongwe J order by relying on the two subsequent directives, as those directives were based on new legal premises not considered in the original judgment. The court found that Discovery Health had standing to enforce the Mbongwe J order as a party with a judgment in its favour. However, the subsequent directives, premised on statutory obligations under the Medical Schemes Act and section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act, were not unlawful on their face and remained operative until reviewed and set aside. The principles of res judicata and res inter ali…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Schemes Act
• Collateral Benefits
• Subrogation
• Res Judicata
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

E.C.S v Road Accident Fund (20844/20)

E.C.S v Road Accident Fund (20844/20) [2024] ZAGPJHC 899 (12 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20844/20

Judge

N S Krüger

The court found that the insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, having entered the intersection against a red light and at excessive speed, causing severe injuries to the plaintiff. The plaintiff acted reasonably and could not have avoided the collision. The defendant presented no evidence to support contributory negligence or alternative causation. Expert evidence established that the plaintiff's injuries directly and legally caused her loss of earning capacity and employment difficulties. The court held that the Road Accident Fund is liable for medical expenses paid by the…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Subrogation
• Punitive Costs

Visser v Road Accident Fund (990/2022)

Visser v Road Accident Fund (990/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 83 (30 August 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

990/2022

Judge

Mamosebo

The court found that the Road Accident Fund is liable to compensate the plaintiff for her past medical and hospital expenses, including those paid by her medical aid (POLMED) and out-of-pocket payments. The defendant's application for postponement or removal of the matter was refused, as the Supreme Court of Appeal had already dismissed the RAF's application for leave to appeal in the related Van Tonder matter, and an application for reconsideration does not automatically suspend proceedings. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and her husband was uncontroverted, and the defendant failed…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Past Medical Expenses
• Collateral Benefits
• Subrogation
• Costs Award

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016)

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (84274/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 845 (27 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

84274/2016

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that Rand Mutual Assurance, having compensated the plaintiff for past hospital and medical expenses under the commuting journey policy, is entitled to claim reimbursement from the Road Accident Fund in the plaintiff's name by virtue of the doctrine of subrogation. The court dismissed the defendant's special pleas regarding locus standi and the non-recoverability of claims under the commuting journey policy. The amount awarded for past hospital and medical expenses must be paid to Rand Mutual Assurance as undertaken by the plaintiff. The second point in limine was dismissed and…

Source excerpt

• Subrogation
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• Past Medical Expenses
• Locus Standi
• Commuting Journey Policy

Gunther v Road Accident Fund (24228/16)

Gunther v Road Accident Fund (24228/16) [2024] ZAWCHC 153 (6 June 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

24228/16

Judge

Pangarker

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for past medical, hospital and related expenses is not based on subrogation but on section 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act. The defendant's reliance on subrogation and exclusion of liability under section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act and the Medical Schemes Act was rejected as unmeritorious and contrary to established legal principles. Benefits received from a medical aid are collateral and do not absolve the defendant from its statutory obligation to compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved her entitlement to compensation for past medical expenses…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Subrogation
• Medical Aid Reimbursement
• Quantum Of Damages
• Collateral Benefits

Bester obo C & E.N v Road Accident Fund (3200/2019)

Bester obo C & E.N v Road Accident Fund (3200/2019) [2024] ZAECMKHC 67 (30 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3200/2019

Judge

Metu

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 38(2) to allow evidence of past hospital and medical expenses to be adduced by affidavit, as the defendant did not oppose this method and the evidence was undisputed. The court found that payment of medical expenses by a medical aid scheme does not absolve the defendant of liability to the plaintiff. The principle of res inter alios acta applies, meaning the defendant cannot benefit from payments made by third parties such as medical aids. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the expenses from the defendant and is obliged to reimburse the medical…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Collateral Benefits
• Medical Expenses Reimbursement
• Rule 38 Evidence
• Subrogation
• Costs Of Suit

Vitash Trucking CC and Another v Vervoer and Others (1707/2016)

Vitash Trucking CC and Another v Vervoer and Others (1707/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 163 (16 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1707/2016

Judge

P R Cronje

High Court motor collision matter: the court found both drivers negligent and apportioned liability 80% against the defendants and 20% against the plaintiffs.

• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Apportionment Of Negligence
• Insurable Interest
• Subrogation
• Onus Of Proof
• Motor-vehicle-collision