A new landmark Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) is set to reshape the way personal injury and compensation claims are handled in South Africa.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 30 April 2026, the SCA dismissed the RAF’s appeal against an order granted in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, with costs.
“This appeal concerns the lawfulness of amendments to the RAF 1 claim form and the prescribed document claimants must submit to the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to access compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996,” stated the SCA Registrar.
“The central issue was whether the RAF and the Minister of Transport acted within their statutory and constitutional powers in introducing more onerous requirements through Board Notices 271 and 302 of 2022.”
The Supreme Court declared key changes to the RAF’s claims process unlawful, including stricter requirements that had led to the rejection of numerous claims.
It ruled that both the RAF and Minister of Transport acted outside their legal powers when introducing new requirements to the RAF1 claim form, which is the mandatory gateway for compensation claims.
According to Kirstie Haslam, Partner at DSC Attorneys, the real impact of the judgment will now be felt by claimants caught in the system over the past few years.
“This is a significant legal victory for claimants, but it creates a complex and potentially chaotic situation on the ground,” said Haslam.
“Many claims that were rejected under the unlawful requirements may now need to be re-lodged, effectively restarting the process.”
RAF imposed new hurdles to reject victim claims
The court found that the state-owned entity imposed additional administrative hurdles in an attempt to make it harder for victims to access compensation.
It stated that this undermines the purpose of the RAF Act, which is to support road accident victims.
The ruling raised urgent questions for claims that are already in the legal system.
In situations where claims have been rejected and the ligation has progressed, there may now be procedural complications.
It’s possible that these claims will need to be resubmitted using the older, legally valid process.
“This creates uncertainty not just for claimants, but for attorneys, insurers, and the courts,” explained Haslam.
“We are likely to see disputes around whether matters can proceed as they are, or whether they must be reset entirely.”
The SCA ordered that claimants whose submissions were previously rejected must be allowed to relodge their claims by 30 September 2026.
This is significant for persons who attempted to submit claims directly to the RAF but were turned away due to the entity’s stricter requirements.
“There are likely many people who simply gave up after their claims were rejected,” says Haslam. “This judgment effectively gives them a second chance to claim compensation they may have been unfairly denied.”
The court stated that the RAF’s strict requirements had a direct impact on claimants’ rights, including their ability to lodge valid claims and avoid prescription.
It ordered that, until new regulations are lawfully introduced, the Road Accident Fund must revert to its older 2008 claim form, which has been reaffirmed as the valid standard.
Transport Minister Barbara Creecy has been given six months to introduce a revised claimes process that complies with legal and procedural requirements.
While this is an important victory for motorists, Haslam noted that resubmission of rejected claims will put additional strain on an already overburdened system.
“The intention of tightening requirements may have been administrative efficiency, but the court has made it clear that this cannot come at the expense of access to justice,” she said.
“What happens next will depend on how quickly and effectively the RAF and the Department of Transport respond. In the meantime, claimants need to act quickly to protect their rights.”
Loading ...
