Road Accident Fund v Thugwana

The respondent, a pedestrian, was injured on 17 November 1998 in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident where the identity of neither the driver nor the owner was established. He was hospitalised for five to six weeks and gave oral details of the accident to a police officer while in hospital. No affidavit was submitted to the police within the period contemplated by regulation 2(1)(c) under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. Various affidavits were later made, but only on 29 August 2002 was an affidavit formally submitted to the police. The Road Accident Fund raised a special plea alleging non-compliance with regulation 2(1)(c). The High Court dismissed the special plea, and the Fund appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside. The respondent was granted leave to amend his replication within 15 days to rely on section 24(5) of the Act. Failing such amendment, the respondent’s claim would be dismissed with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing on the special plea.

This case authoritatively confirms that regulation 2(1)(c) under the Road Accident Fund Act is peremptory and constitutionally valid, clarifying compliance requirements in hit-and-run claims. It reinforces the distinction between identified and unidentified vehicle claims and strengthens the Fund’s ability to combat fraud by enforcing procedural safeguards. The judgment also overruled Makwetlane v Road Accident Fund, contributing to certainty in RAF jurisprudence.