Mahano v Road Accident Fund

The three appellants were injured in separate motor vehicle accidents after 1 August 2008 and instituted actions against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) claiming damages, including general (non-pecuniary) damages. Under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as amended, general damages are payable only if the injury is assessed as a ‘serious injury’ in terms of prescribed regulations. The assessment must use the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). Regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) provides that the AMA Guides must be applied in accordance with operational guidelines or amendments, ‘if any’, published by the Minister of Transport. No such operational guidelines had been published. The appellants contended that, in the absence of these guidelines, it was legally impossible to comply with the regulations and that the AMA Guides could not lawfully be applied. They sought declaratory relief to that effect. The High Court rejected this interpretation and dismissed the applications, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case authoritatively clarifies the interpretation of regulation 3(1)(b)(iv) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations and confirms that the application of the AMA Guides is not contingent on the Minister publishing operational guidelines. It reinforces the administrative nature of the ‘serious injury’ assessment under the RAF scheme and prevents claimants from avoiding the statutory threshold for general damages by relying on the absence of ministerial guidelines. The decision promotes certainty and functionality in the post-2008 RAF compensation framework.