Ryan Khumalo v Road Accident Fund

The plaintiff instituted action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and applied for default judgment. In support of compliance with the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, the plaintiff relied on a Section 19(f) affidavit. The affidavit described a motor vehicle collision on 10 September 2023 but failed to identify the plaintiff’s role in the accident, place the plaintiff at the scene, or allege negligence. Despite a prior judicial note indicating that the matter was not ripe for hearing due to non-compliance, the plaintiff attempted to remedy the defect by filing an amended Section 19(f) affidavit on 29 April 2025, after court proceedings had commenced. Additionally, affidavits by expert witnesses intended to be used under Rule 38(2) were improperly commissioned, as the experts did not take an oath before the commissioner of oaths.

The plaintiff’s application for default judgment was dismissed. The plaintiff’s attorney and counsel were barred from recovering any fees relating to the default judgment application from either the plaintiff or the defendant. The registrar was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Legal Practice Council, Gauteng, for consideration of the conduct of the legal practitioners involved.

The judgment underscores the strict statutory compliance required under the Road Accident Fund Act, particularly Section 19(f), even in default judgment proceedings. It highlights that defective affidavits cannot be cured belatedly without potential consequences for enforceability. The case is also significant for its strong stance on the proper commissioning of affidavits and the ethical duties of legal practitioners, reinforcing professional accountability through referral to the Legal Practice Council.