The Road Accident Fund v Mudawo and Others; The Road Accident Fund v Lyton and Others

The respondents in both appeals are foreign nationals who sustained injuries in motor vehicle accidents in South Africa and claimed compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. On 21 June 2022, the RAF’s Chief Operations Officer issued a directive requiring foreign claimants to submit documentary proof that they were legally in South Africa at the time of the accident. On 4 July 2022, the Minister of Transport published an amended RAF 1 claim form containing a similar requirement. In the first matter, the respondents launched a review application in the High Court. A Full Court set aside the directive and the amended claim form, holding that s 17(1) of the Act does not exclude illegal foreigners. The RAF appealed. In the second matter, several foreign national respondents had obtained court orders or settlement agreements against the RAF. When they sought to enforce these, the RAF refused payment and launched an urgent application to suspend the orders and warrants of execution pending the outcome of the first appeal, contending that illegal foreigners were excluded from claiming. The High Court dismissed that application, and the RAF appealed.

• Whether the phrase 'any person' in s 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 excludes foreign nationals who are illegally in South Africa.
• Whether the Minister of Transport and/or the RAF had the power to issue a directive and amend the prescribed claim form to exclude illegal foreigners from lodging claims.
• Whether the impugned decisions violate the principle of legality and s 6(2)(a)(i) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
• Whether the RAF established a case for suspension of court orders and a stay of execution under Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
• Whether the directive and amended claim form operate retrospectively so as to affect vested rights and binding settlement agreements made orders of court.

In case number 1185/2024: The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. In case number 1468/2024: The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 obliges the Fund to compensate 'any person' for loss or damage caused by the driving of a motor vehicle, and this term includes foreign nationals who are in South Africa illegally; the Act draws no distinction based on citizenship or immigration status. Neither the Minister of Transport nor the Fund is empowered to limit the categories of persons entitled to claim under the Act by way of directive or amendment to the prescribed claim form; doing so violates the principle of legality and amounts to an unauthorised limitation of the Act. The Immigration Act does not prohibit the Fund from investigating and settling claims by illegal foreigners, and s 44's proviso preserves entitlements under any law, including the RAF Act. A court will only suspend the operation of orders or stay execution where real or substantial injustice is established; an incorrect interpretation of a statutory provision does not provide a basis for such relief. Administrative directives and amended claim forms do not operate retrospectively so as to impair vested rights acquired under existing law.

The Court noted that there was no evidence before it of fraudulent claims by illegal foreigners, and that the existing compulsory claim-form requirements already provided sufficient information to verify whether an accident occurred within South Africa. The Court observed that not every foreigner without a passport visa stamp is in South Africa illegally, noting that refugees and asylum seekers may be protected under the Refugees Act 130 of 1998, and that the Immigration Act must be read harmoniously with the Refugees Act. The Court expressed the view that the decision in Chola v RAF (Johannesburg High Court case number 4182/2019) was incorrect and should not be followed. The Court made general observations on the value of compromises in litigation for bringing finality to disputes and reducing overcrowded court rolls.

The judgment confirms that the RAF’s statutory compensation scheme extends to all road-users, including undocumented foreigners, reinforcing the Act’s social-security purpose of giving the widest possible protection to accident victims. It affirms that executive or administrative bodies cannot amend or limit the scope of an Act of Parliament through internal directives or policy decisions without legislative authority, thereby upholding the principle of legality and the rule of law. The decision also clarifies that immigration status does not automatically disentitle a person to benefits conferred by other legislation, and reaffirms the finality of court orders and settlement agreements, as well as the high threshold required to suspend orders or stay execution.