Road Accident Appeal Tribunal and Others v Gouws and Another

Mr Lartz Gouws alleged that he sustained serious bodily injuries after being struck by a motor vehicle on 24 July 2010. He lodged a claim with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under s 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, including a claim for non-pecuniary (general) damages. His injuries were assessed as serious by an orthopaedic surgeon using the prescribed RAF4 form. The RAF rejected the claim for general damages. Mr Gouws invoked the dispute resolution process, and the matter was referred to the Road Accident Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the seriousness of the injuries, primarily on the basis that it could not find a causal link between the accident and the injuries. Mr Gouws successfully reviewed this decision in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, which held that the Tribunal lacked the power to determine causation. The Tribunal and related parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court setting aside the Tribunal’s decision and remitting the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal was upheld.

This case authoritatively clarifies the limited role of the Road Accident Appeal Tribunal under the Road Accident Fund Act. It confirms that the Tribunal’s function is restricted to assessing the seriousness of injuries and that causation remains a matter for judicial determination. The judgment reinforces the principle of legality and prevents administrative bodies from usurping the adjudicative role of courts in RAF claims.