Kekana v Road Accident Fund

The appellant, a police detective, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8 August 1996. He lodged a direct claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). After rejecting an initial offer, he accepted a settlement in 1999 under protest, believing it was inadequate but wishing to avoid legal costs and prescription. In 2013, after reading a newspaper article and consulting an attorney, he alleged that the RAF had under-compensated him and breached a duty of care by failing to act in his best interests and by ignoring medical evidence. He issued summons in 2013. The RAF raised a special plea of prescription.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, confirming the upholding of the special plea of prescription.

The case reaffirms South African prescription law by clarifying that prescription is not postponed by a claimant’s later appreciation of legal rights or by new legal advice. It underscores the distinction between factual knowledge and legal conclusions, particularly in delictual and RAF-related claims.