Road Accident Fund v Mongalo, M E; Nkabinde, Palesa Joyce v Road Accident Fund

Two consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court of Appeal concerned claims for loss of support under s 31 of the Black Laws Amendment Act 76 of 1963. In each case, a woman claimed damages from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) as the surviving partner in a customary union with a deceased road accident victim. Both plaintiffs relied on certificates issued by a Commissioner stating that a customary union existed, which by statute constituted 'conclusive proof' of such union. The RAF admitted liability for the death but disputed that the plaintiffs were partners in valid customary unions, contending that the certificates had been fraudulently obtained. In Mongalo, the High Court ruled as a point of law that the RAF could not lead evidence to rebut the certificate. In Nkabinde, the High Court allowed such evidence, found the certificate fraudulent, and granted absolution from the instance.

Both appeals succeeded. In Mongalo, the ruling barring the RAF from leading evidence of fraud was set aside and replaced with an order allowing such evidence, with costs against the plaintiff. In Nkabinde, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and substituted with an order holding the RAF liable for any damages the plaintiff could prove, together with costs.

The case is a leading South African authority on the interpretation of statutory 'conclusive proof' clauses. It affirms the fundamental principle that fraud vitiates all legal acts and clarifies that even legislatively conclusive certificates may be impeached on grounds of fraud. The judgment is also significant in customary law claims for loss of support, ensuring that statutory mechanisms intended to protect customary union partners are not used to perpetrate or shield fraud.