Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund

The appellant, an anaesthetist, rendered medical treatment to Mr Grundlingh in February 2002 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on 2 October 1998. The treatment cost R1 319.82. Mr Grundlingh had already lodged a third-party claim with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) on 1 September 2000, within the three-year period, but before receiving the appellant’s treatment. The appellant submitted his own claim directly to the RAF on 27 June 2002 in terms of s 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The RAF raised a special plea of prescription, arguing that the appellant’s claim had prescribed because it was lodged more than three years after the accident. The magistrates’ court and the Pretoria High Court upheld the plea, leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The orders of the magistrates’ court and the High Court were set aside, and the RAF’s plea of prescription was rejected.

This case authoritatively clarifies that a supplier’s claim under s 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act is an accessory claim that cannot prescribe while the injured third party’s claim remains valid. It protects medical and other service providers by ensuring their statutory right to claim directly from the RAF is not undermined by an overly technical application of prescription rules.