Samuel Feli Thugwana v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving an unidentified vehicle and lodged a claim against the Road Accident Fund in terms of s 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The Fund raised a special plea alleging that the appellant failed to comply with regulation 2(1)(c), which requires a claimant in an unidentified vehicle claim to submit an affidavit to the police with full particulars of the accident within 14 days if reasonably possible. After earlier proceedings, the appellant amended his replication to rely on s 24(5) of the Act, arguing that because the Fund did not object to the validity of the claim within 60 days, the claim was deemed valid in law despite non-compliance with the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the special plea raised by the Road Accident Fund was upheld.

The case clarifies the distinction between substantive and procedural requirements under the Road Accident Fund Act. It confirms that s 24(5) cannot be relied upon to cure non-compliance with substantive statutory requirements, reinforcing strict compliance with regulation 2(1)(c) in unidentified vehicle claims. The decision provides important guidance on the limits of the deeming provision in s 24(5).