ConCourt: RAF Illegal Foreigner Claims Dismissal Finalized

• The Constitutional Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund's appeals, definitively ruling that undocumented foreign nationals are eligible to claim compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries in South Africa.
• This final judgment upheld earlier High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal decisions that had invalidated RAF regulations and directives aimed at excluding such claimants.
• The courts consistently rejected the RAF's arguments, including those from former CEO Collins Letsoalo, who cited concerns about fraud, the Immigration Act, and verifying accident locations.
• A quorum of eight Constitutional Court judges found the RAF's applications for leave to appeal had "no reasonable prospect of success," dismissing them with costs.
• The legal dispute centered on the interpretation of "any person" in the RAF Act, with courts affirming its inclusive meaning for all accident victims within South Africa's borders.

The Constitutional Court has definitively closed the door on attempts by the Road Accident Fund to prevent undocumented foreign nationals from claiming compensation for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents within South Africa.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa recently delivered a decisive blow to the Road Accident Fund's (RAF) persistent efforts to bar undocumented foreign nationals from submitting claims. On Tuesday, the nation's highest court dismissed with costs the RAF's applications for leave to appeal previous judgments on this contentious issue. This ruling signifies the final rejection of the RAF's stance, affirming the eligibility of all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to seek compensation for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents within the country.

This latest decision by the Constitutional Court follows a series of legal setbacks for the RAF. A quorum of eight judges, including Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, judges Nonkosi Mhlantla, Nambitha Dambuza, Rammaka Mathopo, and Katherine Savage, alongside acting judges Annali Basson, Lister Nuku, and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, deliberated on the RAF's applications. Their unanimous conclusion was that the applications bore "no reasonable prospect of success," leading to their dismissal with an order for costs against the fund. The core of the matter revolved around several foreign nationals who had suffered multiple injuries in various South African motor vehicle accidents and subsequently sought compensation from the RAF under the provisions of the RAF Act for their losses and damages.

The Constitutional Court's decision is the culmination of a protracted legal battle, during which the RAF's attempts to exclude undocumented foreign nationals were repeatedly rejected by lower courts. In July 2024, the High Court in Pretoria had already dismissed, also with costs, an application by the RAF for leave to appeal a prior judgment. That earlier High Court ruling had specifically declared invalid a Department of Transport regulation and an RAF management directive, both of which aimed to prevent undocumented foreign nationals from submitting claims against the fund.

Further back, in June and July 2022, the Minister of Transport and the RAF had initiated measures to exclude undocumented foreign nationals from the scope of the RAF Act, notably through the introduction of a "new RAF 1 claim form." However, a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria reviewed and subsequently set aside these exclusionary measures on March 26, 2024. This particular case was brought by Mudawo, Ndlovu, Sibanda, and Areo, whose claims were central to challenging the RAF's revised policy. Following this, the RAF lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) for leave to appeal the High Court's judgment and order.

The Supreme Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered in April of the current year, also dismissed the RAF's applications for leave to appeal these two cases, again with costs. Judge Ashton Schippers, with the concurrence of judges Yvonne Mbatha, Wendy Hughes, Annali Basson, and Acting SCA Judge Maake Kganyago, authored the SCA's decision. Judge Schippers highlighted that the central legal question in these appeals concerned the interpretation and effect of a specific section within the RAF Act. More precisely, the court had to determine whether the phrase "any person," which entitles individuals to claim compensation for loss or damage, implicitly excluded undocumented foreign nationals. The SCA's dismissal affirmed that it does not.

A second appeal by the RAF, also dismissed by the SCA, challenged a Pretoria High Court order. This order had rejected the RAF's application to interdict the respondents from proceeding with a warrant of execution against the fund's assets. This interdict was sought pending the SCA's decision on the first appeal, indicating the RAF's determination to prevent claimants from enforcing judgments while its appeals were ongoing. The consistent dismissal of these appeals across multiple judicial levels underscores a clear legal interpretation regarding the inclusivity of the RAF Act.

Former RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo provided an answering affidavit in response to the applications brought by the undocumented foreign accident victims, outlining the fund's rationale for its exclusionary attempts. Letsoalo asserted that the decisions were not intended to deny legitimate foreign claimants access to the social benefit scheme established by the RAF Act. Instead, he claimed the primary objectives were to ensure that the loss or damage subject to a claim was indeed caused by the driving of a motor vehicle within South Africa, and to prevent the RAF from contravening the Immigration Act during the processing of claims from foreign nationals.

Letsoalo further argued that the RAF had identified numerous claimants who were citizens of countries lacking a comparable social benefit scheme to that provided by the RAF Act. He also raised concerns about the prevalence of fraudulent claims, alleging that many involved losses or damages sustained in accidents occurring outside South Africa's borders. According to Letsoalo, without requiring claimants to specify the location where the loss or damage occurred, the RAF lacked the means to verify if it resulted from a motor vehicle incident within South African territory. Despite these arguments, the courts consistently found them insufficient to justify the exclusion of undocumented foreign nationals from the fund's coverage.

This ruling confirms that undocumented foreign nationals are eligible to claim from the Road Accident Fund. Lawyers must now advise clients accordingly and ensure all RAF claim processes reflect this established legal precedent, regardless of immigration status, as further attempts by the RAF to exclude such claimants have been definitively rejected by the highest court.

Source: Reporting based on recent court documents.