Luvuyo Nicolaas Mbele v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 7 July 2006. He instituted a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in terms of s 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, which was lodged timeously and later settled. As part of the settlement, the RAF issued an undertaking in terms of s 17(4)(a)(i) on 23 October 2008 to compensate the appellant for future medical and hospital expenses, payable after such costs were incurred and on proof thereof. The settlement was made an order of court on 21 April 2009. The appellant incurred medical expenses in June 2009 and submitted proof and a demand for payment in 2010, but the RAF failed to pay. In April 2013 the appellant issued summons to enforce payment under the undertaking. The RAF raised a special plea that the claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act, contending that the undertaking created a new contractual debt subject to a three-year prescription period.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Western Cape Division of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the Road Accident Fund’s special plea of prescription with costs.

This judgment clarifies that claims for payment of future medical expenses under s 17(4)(a)(i) undertakings are governed by the prescription regime in the Road Accident Fund Act, not the Prescription Act. It confirms that such undertakings do not create independent contractual debts and reinforces the principle of a single, indivisible cause of action in RAF claims. The decision provides certainty on when prescription begins to run for future medical expenses and strengthens access to compensation for road accident victims.