Road Accident Fund v Duma and three related cases (Road Accident Fund v Kubeka; Road Accident Fund v Meyer; Road Accident Fund v Mokoena)

Four separate plaintiffs instituted actions in the South Gauteng High Court against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from motor vehicle accidents. Liability for their bodily injuries was not disputed. The dispute concerned their entitlement to general (non-pecuniary) damages, which under s 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is limited to cases of ‘serious injury’ as assessed in accordance with prescribed regulations. In each case, a RAF 4 serious injury assessment form was submitted, signed by a psychiatrist who had not personally examined the plaintiffs and relied largely on reports prepared by an occupational therapist. The RAF rejected the RAF 4 forms, often long after submission and shortly before trial. The High Court held that the injuries were serious and awarded general damages, effectively disregarding the RAF’s rejection.

The appeals in all four matters were upheld. The High Court orders awarding general damages were set aside. No order as to costs was made. The claims for general damages were held to be premature pending compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

This decision is a leading authority on the interpretation and application of the ‘serious injury’ threshold under the Road Accident Fund Act. It clarified that courts lack jurisdiction to award general damages unless the claimant has complied with the regulatory assessment process and the RAF (or appeal tribunal) has accepted the injury as serious. The case firmly situates the RAF’s decision-making within administrative law and PAJA, shaping subsequent RAF litigation and procedure.