Tosholo v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured as a passenger in a motor vehicle accident on 9 July 2012. While hospitalised, she was advised by an agent of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to lodge a claim directly with the RAF. She did so and, on 18 November 2013, signed an offer and acceptance of settlement in terms of which she was paid approximately R17 000. The written settlement expressly recorded that it was in full and final settlement of her claim and that the RAF was discharged from all liability. The appellant later alleged that she believed the settlement covered only past loss of earnings. After consulting attorneys, a further claim and later summons were issued against the RAF for additional damages. The RAF raised special pleas of prior settlement (compromise) and prescription. The High Court upheld both special pleas, finding that the claim had been finally settled and was prescribed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The case reaffirms the strict enforcement of settlement agreements in South African law, particularly in Road Accident Fund matters. It confirms that a valid compromise brings finality to disputes, has the effect of res judicata, and bars further claims arising from the same cause of action unless the settlement is properly challenged. The judgment also underscores judicial restraint in interfering with freely concluded settlement agreements, even where a claimant later alleges under-settlement.