A Court ruling that re-opens previously rejected Road Accident Fund claims – and preserves them from prescription – may force the Fund to recognise a wave of liabilities that have, until now, remained off its books.
Potentially hundreds of thousands of claims blocked under the 2022 RAF 1 form have effectively been revived, after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down judgment on 30 April 2026.
The appeal, brought by the RAF, its board chairperson, and chief executive against, among others, the Legal Practitioners’ Indemnity Insurance Fund, individual claimants, and law firms, centred on whether the RAF – and ultimately the Minister of Transport – had the authority to impose stricter requirements for lodging claims through the revised RAF 1 form.
The SCA found they did not.
It ruled that claimants whose submissions were declined or not acknowledged under the 2022 regime may resubmit their claims – and have them treated as if they were lodged on the original date.
The order gives claimants until 30 September 2026 to refile using the 2008 RAF 1 form. Where those claims are successfully lodged, they will be deemed to have been submitted on the date they were first attempted – preserving them from prescription and reopening a potentially significant pool of liabilities for the Fund.
The potential financial exposure is already being flagged in political and policy circles. In a statement issued on 1 May, Alan Beesley, an ActionSA Member of Parliament, said the ruling could have “far-reaching consequences not only for the RAF itself but for South Africa’s national fiscus, to the tune of nearly R180 billion”.
Beesley said preliminary estimates suggest that as many as 600 000 claims may have been excluded under the unlawful form. At an average claim value of R300 000, this would translate into roughly R180bn in previously unrecorded liabilities. He added this is on top of existing concerns about the RAF’s financial position, including unrecorded liabilities linked to past accounting changes, placing total exposure potentially above R500bn.
Read: RAF drops audit fight as investigation into R1bn media contracts heats up
Although these figures are not yet reflected in official reporting, they underscore the scale of the risk now brought into focus by the SCA’s order.
Available data already points to a significant pool of affected claims. Evidence before Parliament shows that under the stricter regime, a large share of claims never passed the administrative threshold. Between July 2022 and March 2025, of 105 039 RAF 1 claims that were pre-assessed, only 29 049 (28%) were compliant, while 75 990 (72%) were rejected for failing to meet documentation requirements.
That figure reflects only claims that entered the system. It excludes those turned away before registration or never recorded at all.
How the dispute unfolded
The ruling is the culmination of a dispute that began in 2021, when the RAF moved to tighten control over how claims are lodged.
In March 2021, the Fund introduced an internal directive requiring additional documentation at lodgement. This was followed in June by a board notice and a substituted RAF 1 form that formalised stricter requirements.
That approach was challenged in Mautla and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others. The Gauteng High Court interdicted the RAF from implementing the new requirements and set aside the substituted form, finding that the Fund had relied on powers it did not have.
The RAF withdrew the notice but returned to the same approach.
In May 2022, it issued Board Notice 271, again imposing stricter requirements. A memorandum to the Department of Transport acknowledged that only the Minister could lawfully prescribe the form and recommended that the revised version be approved and gazetted.
The Minister accepted that recommendation. On 4 July 2022, the revised RAF 1 form was formally introduced through Board Notice 302.
That decision triggered a second round of litigation. Claimants, legal bodies, and law firms challenged both the RAF’s board notice and the Minister’s approval. The High Court set both aside and reinstated the 2008 form.
The RAF appealed. The SCA has now dismissed that appeal and confirmed the High Court’s findings.
From gateway to barrier
The litigation unfolded alongside growing scrutiny in Parliament.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) has been investigating the Fund since late 2025, following concerns over governance failures, financial reporting, and operational decisions. Its draft oversight report – now being worked through section by section before finalisation – has already highlighted the RAF 1 form as a central issue in the Fund’s claims process.
Days before the SCA judgment, SCOPA warned that setting aside the RAF 1 form could trigger a “massive influx of claims” and expose the Fund to liabilities it has not recognised.
At the centre of SCOPA’s findings is a shift in how the form functions.
Read: RAF faces claims surge if form falls
Originally designed to initiate claims, the RAF 1 form became, from 2021, a threshold test. Stricter requirements – introduced through internal directives and formalised in the 2022 form – required extensive documentation upfront. Where information was missing, claims were not accepted or registered.
The impact was immediate.
Weekly registrations dropped from nearly 2 000 to just over 300. Over time, new claims fell from 328 173 in 2018/19 to 65 732 in 2024/25, while finalised claims declined from 229 534 to 78 384.
For many claimants, the threshold proved prohibitive. Claims were not recorded, prescription periods continued to run, and access increasingly depended on legal intervention. Evidence before SCOPA indicates that legal costs in some cases reached about R100 000, as claimants turned to litigation simply to have claims recognised.
The committee concluded that the form reduced claim registrations, increased litigation, and undermined the RAF’s mandate.
What the court found
The SCA addressed both the legality of the form and the process behind it.
It found that the RAF had no authority to prescribe binding claim requirements. That power rests with the Minister.
The Minister’s decision, however, was also unlawful.
The Court held that approving the revised form required a proper process, including public participation. That did not occur. There was no evidence that the Minister considered whether the changes were necessary or aligned with the purpose of the RAF Act – to compensate road accident victims.
The record consisted largely of a departmental memorandum. The Minister provided no explanation for the decision. On that basis, the Court found no indication of independent judgement and concluded that the approval appeared to resolve an internal dispute over regulatory authority.
The Court also found that the revised form created barriers to entry by requiring extensive documentation upfront, departing from the established approach that substantial compliance is sufficient at lodgement.
With the Minister’s decision set aside, the RAF’s board notice fell away with it. The revised RAF 1 form was declared unlawful, and the system reverts to the 2008 version.
What happens now
Both the High Court and the SCA reached the same conclusion: the 2022 RAF 1 form cannot stand.
The courts also set out what follows.
Claims already accepted under the 2022 system remain valid and must continue to be processed.
Claimants whose submissions were rejected or not acknowledged are given another opportunity. They may resubmit their claims using the 2008 RAF 1 form by 30 September 2026. If accepted, those claims will be treated as if they were lodged on the original date.
The 2008 form is reinstated as the applicable standard and will remain in place until it is lawfully amended.
The Minister is required to develop and publish a revised RAF 1 form within six months, this time following the proper process.
Click here to download the judgment.
