Road Accident Fund v Abdool-Carrim Ato and Others

The majority of the respondents were suppliers of medical services who rendered treatment to third parties injured in motor vehicle accidents. In terms of section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, such suppliers are entitled to claim their medical costs directly from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The suppliers contracted with Alexander Forbes Compensation Technologies (Pty) Ltd (A-Fact), a non‑attorney service provider, to assess and process their claims against the RAF in return for payment after settlement. This arrangement operated with the RAF’s knowledge for several years. In 2006, the RAF refused to process approximately 49 000 claims (valued at about R284 million), contending that the agreements between the suppliers and A-Fact contravened section 19(d) of the Act and rendered the suppliers’ claims unenforceable. The High Court rejected the RAF’s interpretation, holding that section 19(d) applied only to agreements entered into by third parties, not suppliers. The RAF appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Road Accident Fund was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, including the costs of two counsel for the 1239th and 1240th respondents.

This case authoritatively clarifies the scope of sections 17(5) and 19(d) of the Road Accident Fund Act. It confirms that statutory exclusions aimed at protecting third‑party claimants from exploitative agreements do not apply to medical service suppliers. The judgment protects the direct‑claim mechanism for suppliers, ensures continuity in medical service provision to accident victims, and reinforces a purposive approach to statutory interpretation in Road Accident Fund matters.