Nobantu Gloria Mpahla v The Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 18 November 2011 and instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages, including general (non-pecuniary) damages. In compliance with the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 and its Regulations, she submitted a Serious Injury Assessment (SIA) report to the RAF on 28 October 2013. Regulation 3(3)(dA) required the RAF to accept, reject, or refer the report for further assessment within 90 days. The RAF failed to take any decision within that period, which expired on 26 January 2014, and only rejected the report on 17 January 2015. The appellant contended that the RAF’s failure to act timeously meant the injury was deemed to be serious, entitling her to general damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court’s decision was confirmed.

This case clarified that regulation 3(3)(dA) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations does not create a deeming provision in favour of claimants when the RAF fails to act within 90 days. It confirmed that claimants’ remedies for delay lie in administrative-law review under PAJA, reinforcing the principles set out in RAF v Duma and providing certainty on the interpretation of the amended regulations.