Manukha v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 14 August 2008. She lodged a RAF1 claim form with the Road Accident Fund in January 2009 claiming compensation, including non-pecuniary (general) damages. Although the claim included general damages, the required serious injury assessment report (RAF4 form) was only submitted in July 2014, more than five years after the accident. The appellant had already instituted action against the Fund in July 2011. The Fund raised a special plea that the claim for non-pecuniary loss had prescribed due to the late submission of the RAF4 form.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the Road Accident Fund’s special plea of prescription with costs.

This case clarifies that claims under the Road Accident Fund Act are unitary and indivisible, and that non-pecuniary loss is not a separate claim for purposes of prescription. It confirms that late submission of a RAF4 serious injury assessment report does not cause prescription if the main claim was timeously lodged and action instituted. The judgment provides important guidance on the interaction between sections 17, 23 and 24 of the Act and the RAF regulations.