Court Ruling Paves the Way for Previously Denied RAF Claims

https://iframe.iono.fm/e/1673989?layout=modern" width="100%" height="170" frameborder="0" data-mce-fragment="1

You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.

JEREMY MAGGS: A significant ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has introduced new ambiguity into the Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims process. To my understanding, the court has deemed essential modifications to the RAF claims process as unlawful, concluding that the RAF and the Minister of Transport (Barbara Creecy) acted beyond their authority in enforcing stricter criteria for the RAF 1 claim form.

What does this entail? It appears that thousands of previously denied claims may now need to be re-submitted by the end of September, which will undoubtedly add strain to an already pressured system. Let’s explore the implications for claimants, attorneys, and the Road Accident Fund itself.

Read: The RAF may necessitate a significant government bailout …

I’m now speaking with Kirstie Haslam, a partner at DSC Attorneys. Kirstie, could you clarify what the Supreme Court of Appeal found problematic in the claims process?

KIRSTIE HASLAM: Hi, Jeremy. Initially, the Road Accident Fund introduced a new claim form back in 2022. While it seemed straightforward, the requirements mandated that claimants submit a perfectly prepared and completely detailed claim to even have it accepted for registration.

This requirement was entirely burdensome and impractical, which is why the Supreme Court of Appeal and lower courts found fault with the process used to implement that claim form.

To properly implement it, public consultation should have occurred so stakeholders could provide input on the feasibility of the new system. Unfortunately, this was entirely overlooked, leading to years of litigation culminating in last week’s SCA ruling.

JEREMY MAGGS: Kirstie, even more troubling is that the court indicated that both the fund and the minister acted beyond their authorized powers. How serious do you find this conclusion?

KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is a severe finding. Notably, when the case reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, the minister did not even participate, leaving the Road Accident Fund to defend its actions alone. Initially, the Fund attempted to implement the form merely through a board notice, but they later had the minister publish the new claim form after realizing they were in a complicated situation. It’s concerning that administrative law was ignored in an effort to establish an efficient new system, which instead led to chaos and numerous issues for claimants.

Read:

JEREMY MAGGS: Now, regarding claimants, why is this ruling of such significance for ordinary road accident victims?

KIRSTIE HASLAM: This ruling provides claimants a new opportunity until September 30 of this year, a rather limited timeframe, to resubmit claims that were previously rejected unlawfully. In our practice, we’ve faced rejections each time we lodged a claim since 2022, often leading to non-registration, compounded by the fact that the RAF’s internal claims system lacks the capacity to track rejected claims, creating a multitude of issues.

Consequently, claimants can now resubmit. However, the considerable delays in processing claims have resulted in a substantial backlog that necessitates registration and resolution.

JEREMY MAGGS: Let me tread carefully with the next question—how much of this is theoretical, considering it seems likely the fund will require a significant government bailout at some point, given its precarious financial state?

KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is essential to remember that it operates as a pay-as-you-go system, distinct from typical insurance models that necessitate reserves for outstanding claims. Over the years since the new claim form’s implementation, the rate of claim finalization has plummeted. The new claims registration fell by 72%, hence finalization rates also dropped significantly, which raises questions about potential savings that could have emerged from this decline.

It’s crucial to consider the fuel levy as well since delays in increases in this area have adversely impacted the fund’s liquidity and its ability to settle claims.

Read:
Govt slashes levy on diesel to zero, as it extends fuel relief
Illegal foreigners cannot be excluded from claiming road accident compensation – SCA
RAF ordered to pay 209 road accident victims R47m in 30 days

JEREMY MAGGS: So, if I’m correct, claimants need to re-lodge by September 30. Is this deadline realistic?

KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is a very tight timeline. My primary concern is for those claimants who dealt directly with the Road Accident Fund, attempted to lodge their claims, and were likely turned away—they may not even be aware of this judgment.

The fund has the responsibility to create awareness through publications in various newspapers and inform the public of this change, inviting them to resubmit claims. However, I worry many victims will miss out on this opportunity. Those affected should consult a knowledgeable attorney as soon as possible. While meeting the deadline is feasible, prompt action is crucial.

Read:
RAF ordered to pay Sunshine Hospital R92m within seven days
RAF liabilities could increase by R400bn [Nov 2025]
RAF inquiry: Two years and almost R23bn in excess payments

JEREMY MAGGS: That is, of course, if the RAF can handle a new wave of re-lodged claims.

KIRSTIE HASLAM: Indeed. The Road Accident Fund did announce after the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling that their claims management system has been updated to accommodate the previously valid claim form, the 2008 claim form, effectively reinstated by the SCA. They claim to have enhanced their system, but managing a flood of new claims will still be a considerable task for them.

JEREMY MAGGS: Thank you so much, Kirstie Haslam, partner at DSC Attorneys.