Noxolo Cynoria Dlakane obo HD (her minor child) v Road Accident Fund

The plaintiff sued in her representative capacity on behalf of her minor son who was injured in a motor vehicle accident at Mdantsane, East London, on 10 April 2022, whilst a passenger in a motor vehicle. The plaintiff alleged the driver was negligent and that her child suffered serious injuries resulting in general damages, loss of capacity and earnings. The plaintiff claimed she complied with the provisions of the Road Accident Fund Act, No. 56 of 1996 in lodging the claim. The Fund denied the claim, challenging the plaintiff's locus standi and compliance with registration requirements. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment on 6 June 2022 declaring the defendant 100% liable, though the Fund later filed a plea on 20 July 2023. The Fund repeatedly failed to assess whether the child's injuries were serious as required by section 17 of the RAFA and failed to register the claim on its system despite multiple court orders. The plaintiff was constrained to bring a review application under PAJA, which succeeded on 15 April 2025, declaring substantial compliance with the RAFA. Despite this order, the Fund continued to refuse to register the claim, insisting on an unabridged birth certificate.

• Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to represent her minor child in lodging a claim with the Road Accident Fund and instituting legal proceedings
• Whether the plaintiff has substantially complied with the registration requirements under the Road Accident Fund Act, No. 56 of 1996
• Whether the Road Accident Fund is bound to comply with court orders directing it to register and assess claims
• Whether the Fund's administrative processes can override or delay compliance with binding court orders

1. It is declared that the plaintiff has locus standi on behalf of her minor child to have both lodged the claim on behalf of her son under the provisions of PAJA and to have instituted the present action. 2. It is declared again that the plaintiff has established the necessary requirements for registration of the claim. 3. The Fund is directed forthwith to enter the claim on its system as registered and to assess it within fifteen (15) days and thereanent to make an appropriate offer in respect of the child's claims for statutory compensation. 4. The defendant is liable for the costs of the proceedings on 12 June 2025, and of 10 and 11 June 2025, on Scale A.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A parent acting as guardian has locus standi to lodge claims with the Road Accident Fund on behalf of a minor child and to institute legal proceedings without necessarily producing an unabridged birth certificate where other evidence of guardianship is available; (2) Once a court has declared that a claimant has substantially complied with the registration requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act, the Fund is bound to give effect to that declaration and cannot continue to insist on additional administrative requirements; (3) The Road Accident Fund's internal administrative processes and system requirements cannot override or justify non-compliance with binding court orders directing registration and assessment of claims; (4) Courts will grant declaratory and mandatory relief to compel the RAF to fulfill its statutory obligations where it persistently refuses to do so.

The court made pointed observations about the Fund's conduct, describing the fate of the action as "quite unfortunate" and noting that the Fund "seems to imagine that it enjoys immunity from court directed instructions and can simply insist on its administrative processes as justification for such a stance." The court also observed that the Fund made "absolutely no input regarding the material issues still then in contention between the parties, proffering as a standard refrain that 'the defendant's attorney undertakes to take instructions and revert'" with these instructions never being forthcoming. These observations reflect judicial frustration with systemic delays and obstruction by the RAF in fulfilling its statutory mandate to compensate victims of road accidents.

This case highlights the Road Accident Fund's persistent non-compliance with court orders and abuse of administrative processes to delay legitimate claims. It emphasizes that administrative entities like the RAF cannot use internal system requirements to circumvent binding court orders, particularly where substantial compliance with statutory requirements has been judicially determined. The case demonstrates the practical difficulties claimants face when the RAF refuses to fulfill its statutory obligations, requiring multiple court applications (default judgment, review under PAJA, and separated trial on compliance issues) to enforce what should be straightforward administrative processes. It reinforces the principle that courts will not tolerate state entities treating themselves as immune from judicial direction.