Ntsieni Josephine Manukha v Road Accident Fund

On 14 August 2008, the appellant was a passenger in a motor vehicle on Mavhoi Road in Limpopo when it overturned allegedly due to the negligence of a passenger bus driver. The appellant suffered personal injuries including fracture of left radius and ulna, bruises, and head injuries. In January 2009, the appellant lodged an RAF1 claim form with the respondent (Road Accident Fund) within the prescribed period, claiming R700,000 in total damages, including R200,000 for non-pecuniary loss. The RAF1 form left paragraph 22 (the medico-legal report) blank. In July 2011, the appellant instituted action against the Fund. The Fund responded in July 2009 alerting the appellant's attorneys that there was no serious injury assessment report (RAF4 form) to substantiate the claim for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant's attorneys only served the RAF4 form on 26 July 2014 (more than five years from the date the cause of action arose). The RAF4 form, prepared by Dr Monyai on 3 May 2014, assessed the appellant with 36% Whole Person Impairment.

• Whether a claim for general damages (non-pecuniary loss) under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 had prescribed where the serious injury assessment report (RAF4 form) was lodged outside the five-year period prescribed in section 23(3) of the Act
• Whether the late submission of the RAF4 form constituted a separate claim that was subject to prescription independently of the main claim lodged timeously
• Whether a claimant has a single, unitary claim for compensation or multiple separate claims under the Road Accident Fund Act
• The proper interpretation of sections 17, 23 and 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act read with regulation 3(3)(b)(ii) in relation to prescription

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the special plea of prescription with costs.

Under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, a claim for compensation for loss or damage arising from a motor vehicle accident constitutes a single, unitary and indivisible claim for compensation. The various items or heads of damage (including non-pecuniary loss) constituting the claim are not separate claims or separate causes of action. Non-pecuniary loss forms part of the unitary claim for compensation and does not constitute a separate and discrete claim. The late filing of the RAF4 serious injury assessment report outside the prescription period does not result in prescription of the claim for non-pecuniary loss, provided that: (1) the main RAF1 claim form was lodged within the three-year period under section 23(1), and (2) action was instituted within the five-year period under section 23(3) of the Act. Regulation 3(3)(b)(i) expressly permits the serious injury assessment report to be submitted separately after submission of the claim, and the regulations do not deal with prescription. The RAF4 form is a substantiation document for the non-pecuniary loss component of the unitary claim, not a separate claim itself.

The court made several obiter observations: (1) At best, the Fund would have been entitled to a stay of that part of the claim relating to non-pecuniary loss until the process set out in regulation 3 had been complied with by the claimant; (2) Upon receiving an RAF4 form, the Fund must either accept it and deal with the claim on that basis, or reject it if not satisfied it complies with the Act and regulations, in which case it must provide reasons under regulation 3(3)(d)(i) or direct further assessment under regulation 3(3)(d)(ii); (3) The court severely censured counsel for the respondent for the poor state of the heads of argument (all even-numbered pages were missing), describing the work as 'shoddy' and warning that the court will be less tolerant of such remissness in future. The court noted that had the parties prepared a statement of agreed facts under Uniform Rule 33, as would have been appropriate given that no evidence was led, the court would have needed to make an order to that effect.

This case is significant in South African Road Accident Fund jurisprudence because it clarifies: (1) That a claimant under the Road Accident Fund Act has a single, unitary, indivisible claim for compensation, not multiple separate claims for different heads of damage; (2) That non-pecuniary loss forms part of the unitary claim and does not constitute a separate claim subject to independent prescription; (3) That the RAF4 serious injury assessment report is a substantiation document that may be submitted separately from the main RAF1 claim form, and its late submission does not result in prescription of the claim for non-pecuniary loss provided the main claim was lodged timeously and action was instituted within the statutory periods; (4) The proper interpretation and interplay between sections 17, 23 and 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act and the regulations in relation to prescription. The case protects claimants from losing valid claims for non-pecuniary loss due to administrative delays in obtaining medical assessment reports, provided the main claim and action are timeously instituted.