Road Accident Fund v Oupa William Lebeko

The respondent, a pedestrian, was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 6 June 2009, sustaining a compound fracture of the right femur and a concussive brain injury. He lodged a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, including a claim for general (non-pecuniary) damages. Various RAF 4 serious injury assessment reports were submitted. The RAF rejected the serious injury assessment on the basis that maximum medical improvement had not been reached and that the injury did not meet the regulatory thresholds. Despite this, the respondent instituted action and the High Court dismissed the RAF’s special plea of non-compliance with regulation 3 and awarded general damages. The RAF appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the RAF’s special plea, declaring non-compliance with regulation 3, granting the respondent leave to appeal the RAF’s rejection within 90 days, and postponing the claim for general damages sine die pending compliance. Liability for proven loss and an undertaking under s 17(4)(a) were confirmed.

This case authoritatively clarifies that compliance with regulation 3 is a jurisdictional prerequisite for claims for general damages against the RAF. It reinforces the statutory scheme introduced by the 2005 amendments, limits judicial intervention in medical seriousness determinations, and confirms that non-compliance results in a postponement rather than extinction of the claim.