A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal may be important for people whose Road Accident Fund claims were rejected, declined or not acknowledged because of the RAF claim form or the documents required by the RAF.
In Road Accident Fund and Others v Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others (1106/2024 and 1479/2024) [2026] ZASCA 63, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that the amended RAF 1 form and related 2022 requirements were unlawful.
This judgment is important because a RAF claim does not begin only when the RAF agrees with the claim. It begins with proper lodgement. If the RAF refuses to accept the claim at the lodgement stage, the claimant may be placed in a very difficult position, especially where prescription is concerned.
The judgment does not mean that every rejected RAF claim will now automatically succeed. It also does not mean that every old RAF claim can simply be revived. It deals mainly with a specific category of claims: claims affected by the unlawful 2022 RAF form process.
The important date to remember is 6 May 2022.
On that date, the RAF published Board Notice 271 of 2022. This introduced stricter terms and conditions for the administration and lodgement of RAF claims. Thereafter, on 4 July 2022, Board Notice 302 of 2022 was published, which incorporated the amended RAF 1 form.
From that period, some claimants may have attempted to lodge RAF claims, only to be told that the claim was not accepted, not compliant, incomplete, invalid, or that lodgement would not be acknowledged because certain information or supporting documents were allegedly missing.
The practical question is therefore not simply whether a person was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The better question is whether the person attempted to lodge a RAF claim from 6 May 2022 onwards, and whether the RAF then declined, rejected or failed to acknowledge the claim because of the amended form or supporting-document requirements.
The RAF 1 form is not a small administrative detail. It is the statutory gateway to a RAF claim. It is the form that places the RAF in possession of the basic information about the claimant, the accident, the injuries and the compensation being claimed.
Where a valid claim is lodged, important legal consequences may follow. One of those consequences is that lodgement may affect prescription. Where the RAF refuses to accept a claim, or does not acknowledge lodgement, the claimant may later face an argument that the claim was never properly lodged.
That is why the date of attempted lodgement, the form used, the documents submitted and the RAF’s response are all important.
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amended RAF 1 form and related requirements introduced in 2022 were unlawful.
The Court accepted that the RAF 1 form is central to the claims process. It also recognised that the 2022 changes placed a heavier burden on claimants before their claims could even be evaluated.
The effect of the judgment is that the RAF must revert to the 2008 RAF 1 form until a lawful amended form is properly prescribed.
Importantly, the Court also dealt with what must happen to claimants who were affected by the unlawful form process. Claims that were accepted by the RAF under the amended form process remain accepted and must continue to be processed. The difficulty arises with claimants whose lodgement was declined or not acknowledged.
Those affected claimants are given until 30 September 2026 to resubmit their claims using the 2008 RAF 1 form. If lodgement is then secured, they may receive the benefit of lodgement from the date on which lodgement was originally attempted.
This judgment may be relevant if you, or someone acting on your behalf, tried to lodge a RAF claim from 6 May 2022 onwards and the RAF did not accept the claim because of the amended form requirements.
It may also be relevant if the RAF did not issue a claim number, did not acknowledge lodgement, or advised that the claim was not compliant because certain documents were not submitted.
It may further be relevant where the claimant was told that the claim was invalid, incomplete or not properly lodged because of the additional requirements introduced during the 2022 RAF form process.
The important point is that the rejection must be considered carefully. One must look at when the claim was submitted, what form was used, what documents were submitted, what the RAF said in response, and whether the RAF’s refusal was linked to the unlawful form regime.
The deadline of 30 September 2026 is important, but it should not create a false sense of comfort.
A claimant may still need time to find the previous RAF 1 form, proof of submission, emails, rejection letters, medical records, accident reports and other documents. An attorney may also need to check the prescription position and determine whether the claim falls within the category protected by the judgment.
Waiting until the last moment may create unnecessary risk.
If your RAF claim may have been affected, start by gathering all documents relating to the claim. This includes the RAF 1 form that was submitted, proof of submission, any email or letter sent to the RAF, any rejection or non-acceptance notice, any proof that the RAF failed to acknowledge lodgement, the accident report, medical records, hospital records, proof of income or loss of income, and any correspondence from attorneys, insurers or the RAF.
The most important documents will usually be the documents proving when lodgement was attempted and how the RAF responded.
The recent SCA judgment is not a general invitation to reopen every RAF claim. It is, however, an important judgment for claimants whose claims were blocked at the lodgement stage because of the unlawful 2022 RAF form requirements.
If your claim was rejected, declined or not acknowledged during the affected period, it may be worth checking your position urgently. The law may give certain affected claimants an opportunity to resubmit, but that opportunity must be acted on properly and before the deadline.
Need legal advice? Contact HVZ Attorneys at info@hvzattorneys.com or 069 275 8646 to arrange a consultation.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Each matter depends on its own facts, and you should consult an attorney for advice on your specific circumstances.
