Road Accident Fund v Busuku

The respondent, Zuko Busuku, suffered a severe closed head injury in a motor vehicle accident on 21 June 2012 involving an unidentified vehicle. He lodged a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) on the prescribed RAF 1 form on 30 April 2014 in terms of s 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. While the medical report section of the RAF 1 form was left blank, Busuku submitted comprehensive hospital records detailing his treatment and injuries. The RAF did not object to the claim within 60 days. After summons was issued, the RAF raised a special plea alleging non-compliance with s 24(1) and (2)(a) of the Act due to the absence of a completed medical report, contending that the claim had become unenforceable.

The appeal was dismissed. The orders of the High Court and the Full Court were set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the RAF’s special plea with costs.

The case clarifies the interpretation and application of s 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act, confirming that substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient and that failure by the RAF to object within 60 days renders a claim valid. It reinforces a purposive, claimant-friendly approach to RAF claims while balancing the Fund’s investigative interests.