CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Tosholo v Road Accident Fund

Citation(875/2023) [2025] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2025)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureContract Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Delictual Law
Road Accident Fund Claims

Facts of the Case

On 9 July 2012, the appellant, Ms Phozisa Tosholo, was a passenger in a motor vehicle involved in an accident and sustained injuries. While at Tygerberg Hospital, she was approached by an RAF agent who advised her to claim at the RAF offices in the hospital. She lodged a direct claim with the RAF, which was settled on 18 November 2013 when she signed an offer of settlement for approximately R17,000. The appellant alleged she believed this settlement only related to past loss of earnings and expected further payment for pain and suffering and future loss of earnings. Subsequently, on 4 June 2014, her attorneys (Kruger and Company) lodged another claim with the RAF. The RAF informed the attorneys on 30 June 2014 that a claim had already been lodged and they could not register another claim, advising them to contact the Direct Claims Department for clarification, which was not done. The appellant's attorneys issued summons on 29 August 2014 for general damages and other losses. After obtaining medico-legal reports by 2017, and following an email from the RAF on 25 August 2017 indicating the claim had been settled, the appellant launched an interim payment application which was opposed. She then withdrew that application and the 2014 summons, and instituted fresh proceedings on 17 January 2018 based on alleged under-settlement and breach of duty of care by the RAF.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the appellant's claim was fully and finally compromised and settled by the agreement signed on 18 November 2013
  • Whether the special plea of prior settlement should be upheld
  • Whether the appellant's subsequent claim prescribed
  • Whether the settlement agreement could be challenged or required rectification
  • Whether the principles of pacta sunt servanda and res judicata applied to the settlement agreement

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The high court's judgment upholding the special plea of prior settlement was confirmed. Given the disposal of the appeal on the settlement issue, the Court found it unnecessary to consider the second special plea of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

A written settlement agreement that clearly states it is in full and final settlement of a claim, and which discharges the debtor from all liability, is binding on the parties and has the effect of res judicata, putting an end to the lis between the parties. Such an agreement cannot be challenged through subsequent litigation unless it is properly impugned through pleadings seeking rectification or other appropriate remedies. Where a creditor unreservedly accepts an offer of settlement with conditions that they abandon the balance of their claim, they cannot retain the settlement amount and simultaneously sue for the balance. Courts must respect and enforce contractual agreements concluded freely and voluntarily in accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda, and must exercise restraint to avoid undue imposition on the parties' contractual freedom. No evidence may be led to contradict the terms of a valid written contract absent proper challenge to its validity or rectification.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made critical observations about the conduct of both parties and their legal representatives. It noted that the litigation could and should have been avoided by both the appellant's legal practitioner and the RAF. The Court observed that the RAF's conduct in encouraging lay litigants like the appellant to submit direct claims was problematic, given that such litigants may not be acquainted with the legal intricacies of personal damages claims. The Court criticized the RAF for unnecessarily prolonging the matter after summons was issued and for its inconsistent position, particularly when it seemed to admit on 29 August 2017 that the appellant's direct claim had been grossly under-settled based on medico-legal reports. The Court also criticized the appellant's attorneys for failing to follow the RAF's advice on 30 June 2014 to contact the Direct Claims Department to clarify the position before issuing summons, noting that all legal costs could have been avoided had they done so. The Court suggested it may be inappropriate for the appellant's attorneys to seek fees from her given the manner in which they handled her claim. These observations highlight the professional duties of both RAF officials and legal practitioners when dealing with vulnerable claimants in personal injury matters.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces important principles in South African law regarding settlement agreements and compromise in the context of Road Accident Fund claims. It emphasizes that courts will enforce settlement agreements that are freely and voluntarily entered into, in accordance with pacta sunt servanda, and will not interfere with such agreements absent proper challenge through rectification or other legal remedies. The case serves as a warning to both legal practitioners and the RAF regarding their duties when dealing with lay litigants in personal injury claims. It highlights that legal practitioners must exercise due diligence when advised of prior claims and should clarify such matters before proceeding with litigation. The judgment also criticizes the RAF's practice of encouraging direct claims by unrepresented claimants who may not understand the legal intricacies of personal damages claims, while also noting that once such settlements are properly concluded, they will be enforced. The decision underscores the importance of proper pleading when seeking to challenge or rectify settlement agreements.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Be Bop A Lula Manufacturing & Printing CC v Kingtex Marketing (Pty) Ltd[2007] SCA 162 RSA (Case number: 042/07)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that if compensation by the debtor is an offer of compromise accepted by the creditor, the creditor usually loses the right to pursue…

  • The Road Accident Fund v Taylor and other matters(1136/2021) [2023] ZASCA 64 (8 May 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts must exercise restraint to ensure there is no undue imposition on parties' contractual freedom in settlement agreements.

Cited By 163 Cases

  • AB Ventures Limited v Siemens Limited(294/10) [2011] ZASCA 58 (31 March 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for principle that each case involves policy considerations when extending the common law.

  • Amardien and Others v Registrar of Deeds and Others[2018] ZACC 47
    Applies

    The court applies the principle from Mdeyide concerning when a debt is due, specifically that a debt is due when it is immediately claimable or recoverable and…

  • Anglorand Securities Limited v Mudau & another(125/10) [2011] ZASCA 76
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that acknowledgment of liability for purposes of s 14 of the Prescription Act is a matter of fact and must cover every element of the…

  • Antonica Moloi and Others v Road Accident FundCase No 413/98 (SCA)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the proposition that provisions in the Agreement dealing with prescription oust inconsistent provisions of the Prescription Act in…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

A Penglides (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Another
(298/2021) [2022] ZASCA 74 (26 May 2022)
Applies

Applied by the SCA to determine how a prescriptive period should be computed when the last day falls on a day when the court is closed, and the principle that…

  • A T Saayman v Road Accident Fund(329/09) [2010] ZASCA 123
    Applies

    The court applied this case to justify interference with the trial court's award where the trial judge erred in calculation and there was a striking disparity…

  • Barkhuizen v Napier(CCT 72/05) [2007] ZACC 5
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that rules that limit the time during which litigation may be launched are common in our legal system and serve a purpose to which no…

  • BBS Empangeni CC v Phoenix Industrial Park (Pty) Ltd(203/2011) [2012] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2012)
    Applies

    The court applied the principle that whether or not a statement constitutes an acknowledgement of liability for the purpose of s 14 of the Prescription Act is…

  • Blue Chip 2 (Pty) Ltd t/a Blue Chip 49 v Cedrick Dean Ryneveldt & 26 Others(499/15) [2016] ZASCA 98 (03 June 2016)
    Follows

    Followed to confirm that the McKenzie definition of 'cause of action' has stood the test of time.

  • Brodsky Trading 224CC v Cronimet Chrome Mining SA (Pty) Ltd(39/2016) [2016] ZASCA 175 (25 November 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the trite proposition that an estoppel can only operate against the person making the representation or a duly authorised agent.

  • Bruce Bennet Bell v The Road Accident Fund(121/06) [2007] ZASCA 83
    Follows

    Court follows the authoritative ruling that 'road' in the definition of motor vehicle should not be narrowly interpreted to mean 'public road', and adopts the…

  • Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others(CCT 25/09) [2009] ZACC 21
    Cites

    The Court cites Engelbrecht as one of four cases in which it considered the constitutionality of time bar provisions and principles regarding opportunity to…

  • Cameron Stewart Malcolm v Premier, Western Cape Government(207/2013) [2014] ZASCA 9 (14 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that persons over 18 on 1 July 2007 attained their majority on that day, not on the earlier day when they turned 18.

  • Children's Institute v Presiding Officer of the Children's Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others(CCT 69/12) [2012] ZACC 25
    Distinguishes

    The High Court relied on this case to conclude that allowing an amicus to adduce evidence would create a new substantive right, but this Court distinguished it…

  • Chinaz Septoo obo J M Septoo & M Septoo v The Road Accident Fund(058/2017) [2017] ZASCA 164 (29 November 2017)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case as additional authority supporting the principle that a person should not benefit from his or her own wrongful act.

  • Christiaan de Jongh v Pieter Johannes du Pisanie NOSaaknommer 220/2003
    Considers

    Considered and distinguished on the question of whether a rising trend in general damages awards justifies doubling or dramatically increasing prior awards;…

  • Christopher Charles Hughes v Nicolas Gargassoulas and Others(1030/2022) [2024] ZASCA 46 (12 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited to support that conduct must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person by its outward manifestations when determining whether waiver occurred.

  • Churchill v The Premier of Mpumalanga(889/2019) [2021] ZASCA 16 (4 March 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that psychiatric injury is no different from a physical injury.

  • Coca Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Competition Commission of South Africa and OthersCase no: 247/CAC/Jul23
    Cites

    SCA held that a high court may not use inherent jurisdiction to create a right and that statutory transfer provisions have been given narrow interpretation;…

  • Competition Commission of South Africa v ArcelorMittal South Africa Limited(680/12) [2013] ZASCA 84 (31 May 2013)
    Applies

    The court applies Road Accident Fund v Mothupi for the objective test for implied waiver of privilege, which must be judged by its outward manifestations from…

  • Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Limited[2020] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that prescription raises a constitutional issue implicating section 34 right of access to courts and the rationale for time-bars…

  • Coughlan N.O. v Road Accident Fund[2015] ZACC 9
    Disapproves

    Criticized and later found to be incorrectly decided on the issue of whether child support grants should be deducted from damages for loss of support; the…

  • Cynthia Nobuhle Khedama v The Minister of Police(667/2024) [2025] ZASCA 79 (5 June 2025)
    Cites

    Cited to reinforce the standard that an appeal court interferes with damages awards only if they are clearly disproportionate.

  • Daniels v Campbell NO and OthersCCT 40/03; 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC); 2004 (7) BCLR 735 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that there is still no appropriate recognition in our law of the same-sex life partnership as a relationship to meet the legal and…

  • Drake Flemmer & Orsmond Inc & another v Gajjar NO(21/2017) [2017] ZASCA 169 (1 December 2017)
    Cites

    Cited as a comparable 2003 decision for the quantum of general damages.

  • Dr CJ Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund(179/06) [2007] ZASCA 64
    Applies

    Applied to explain that if a claim is submitted after the three-year period specified in s 23(1) has elapsed, it will have prescribed even if submitted before…

  • Dr R Raath v J J G Nel(473/2011) [2012] ZASCA 86 (31 May 2012)
    Applies

    The appellant placed strong reliance on this court's decision in Rudman v Road Accident Fund to contend that any loss suffered by the respondent's businesses…

  • Estate Agency Affairs Board v Auction Alliance (Pty) Ltd and Others[2014] ZACC 3
    Cites

    The Court cited this judgment in relation to limiting retrospectivity of constitutional invalidity.

  • eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Ltd(1068/2016) [2017] ZASCA 129
    Cites

    Court cites Mdeyide for expressing doubt on whether an obligation is indeed a debt in terms of the Prescription Act.

  • Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd v Gabriel ChipanaCase no: JA161/17
    Cites

    Respondent cited this case on when it is in the interest of justice to receive hearsay evidence

  • Fatima Maliwa Dlwati v King Sabata Dalindyebo FET CollegeCase No: P50/15 (Labour Court, Port Elizabeth)
    Cites

    Cited for Chief Justice Mason's observation that a barrister's duty to the court involves independent judgment to ensure speedy and efficient administration of…

  • Fegen v Mphakathi(348/2012) [2013] ZASCA 100 (9 September 2013)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the proposition that Mphakathi was not an idle, careless or negligent creditor in the context of prescription policy.

  • Flanders v Trans Zambezi Express (Pty) Ltd(54/08) [2008] ZASCA 152 (27 November 2008)
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the duty of a driver to reduce speed or stop when vision is impaired.

  • Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd(653/07) [2008] ZASCA 134 (26 November 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for the policy consideration that extension of delictual liability may be refused if it imposes an unwarranted additional burden on the defendant.

  • Glenwin Frieslaar NO and Others v Petrus Andre Ackerman and Another(1242/2016) [2017] ZASCA 03 (02 February 2018)
    Cites

    Cited to explain that in the interests of social certainty and quality of adjudication, it is important that legal disputes be finalised timeously.

  • Grancy Property Limited and Another v Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala and Others(512/2022) [2024] ZASCA 144 (23 October 2024)
    Cites

    Cited to affirm the presumption that trial court's factual findings are correct.

  • Gutsche Family Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mettle Equity Group (Pty) Ltd(115/2011) [2012] ZASCA 4
    Follows

    Followed for principles on the interpretation of 'gross irregularity' and 'exceeded its powers' under s 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act.

  • Hanekom N O and Others v Nuwekloof Private Game Reserve Farm Owners' Association(502/2023) [2024] ZASCA 154 (12 November 2024)
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that a court's inherent power to regulate its own process is not unlimited and does not extend to the assumption of jurisdiction…

  • Harrington N.O. v Transnet Limited trading as Metrorail(32/09) [2009] ZASCA 146 (26 November 2009)
    Applies

    Applied in relation to the approach of the Court to a situation of sudden emergency.

  • Johan Sebastiaan Eksteen v Road Accident Fund(873/2019) [2021] ZASCA 48
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that RAF legislation is social legislation to be interpreted to afford widest possible protection and compensation to third parties.

  • Jones v Road Accident Fund(1286/18) [2019] ZASCA 173 (2 December 2019)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the rationale for the shorter prescriptive period in unidentified vehicle cases.

  • Jongisile Fonjana v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund and Road Accident FundCase number 19/03 (SCA)
    Follows

    The SCA followed the Durban High Court judgment which held that permanent membership of the SANDF in itself was sufficient to constitute rendering military…

  • Kaknis v Absa Bank Limited & another(08/16) [2016] ZASCA 206 (15 December 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the legislature is presumed to know the law.

  • KLD Residential CC v Empire Earth Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd(1135/2016) [2017] ZASCA 98 (6 July 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the justifications for extinctive prescription and the role of time limits in legal certainty and stability.

  • Klub Lekkerrus/Libertas v Troye Villa (Pty) Ltd and Others(260/10) [2011] ZASCA 101 (1 June 2011)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court is not bound by a party's admission on a legal issue but must bring its own assessment to bear and apply the law.

  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others[2013] ZACC 10
    Cites

    Cited alongside Slabbert to confirm the requirement of pleading material facts.

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another(CCT 38/10) [2010] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that road accident fund legislation aims to provide the fullest possible protection to victims of road accidents.

  • Leeuw v First National Bank(516/2008) [2009] ZASCA 161 (30 November 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the elements of estoppel, namely a representation relating to a factual position made by words or conduct.

  • Legal Aid Board in re Four Children(512/10) [2011] ZASCA 39 (29 March 2011)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the proposition that it is undesirable for a person to be both curator and legal representative where earning professional fees might…

  • Legal Practice Council v Bulelani Rubushe(1004/2022) [2023] ZASCA 167 (1 December 2023)
    Cites

    Plasket J referred to this judgment in Mfengwana as setting out in very clear terms the position regarding the Contingency Fees Act.

  • Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another; Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Bopanang Construction CC(CCT 97/07) [2009] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited on the test for waiver being objective and that waiver must be shown clearly and unequivocally.

  • Mabaso v National Commissioner of Police & another(1222/2017) [2019] ZASCA 43 (29 March 2019)
    Cites

    Cited for noting the stated purpose of the RAF Act has always been to give the greatest protection to persons who suffered loss.

  • Majope and Others v The Road Accident Fund(663/2022) [2023] ZASCA 145 (8 November 2023)
    Cites

    The Court cites this case at paragraph 51 for the principle that even if a fee agreement is invalid, this is not a proper basis to deprive legal practitioners…

  • Malefane Kemuel Mahano and Others v Road Accident Fund and Another(20008/2014) [2015] ZASCA 23 (20 March 2015)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the amendment Act introduced two paradigm shifts: general damages may only be awarded for injuries assessed as 'serious' and…

  • M A L Frantzen v The Road Accident Fund(331/2021) [2022] ZASCA 107 (15 July 2022)
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs. The court found that the Linksfield test for evaluating expert evidence was not met and that it…

  • Marelize Botha v Ruark Botha(259/2023) [2024] ZASCA 116 (24 July 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a compromise has the effect of res iudicata.

  • Mbele v Road Accident Fund(799/15) [2016] ZASCA 134 (29 September 2016)
    Follows

    Followed for the proposition that a claimant seeking compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act has a single, indivisible cause of action and various items…

  • Mbhele v MEC for Health for the Gauteng Province(355/2015) [2016] ZASCA 166 (18 November 2016)
    Cites

    Cited as a comparative case in which plaintiff was awarded R80 000 (adjusted to R165 000 in 2015) for emotional shock and trauma after observing his wife's…

  • McDonald v Young(292/10) [2011] ZASCA 31 (24 March 2011)
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished because it found a tacit duty of support based on a same-sex permanent life partnership, whereas in this case there was no consensus for a tacit…

  • McGregor and another v MEC Health, Western Cape(1258/2018) [2020] ZASCA 89
    Cites

    Cited for principle that direct evidence is preferable to expert reconstruction.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Civil Procedure cases

    • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
    • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
    • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
    • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
    • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97