- The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the RAF must compensate any person, including undocumented foreign nationals.
- Attempts by the RAF and the minister to exclude undocumented foreign nationals were found unlawful and unconstitutional.
- The court also rejected efforts to block payment of settled claims and enforcement of court orders.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that undocumented foreign nationals are entitled to claim compensation under Section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Act.
The decision rejects the RAF’s attempts to exclude them through internal directives and amended claim forms, confirming that access to compensation cannot be curtailed in this way.
Writing for the court, Judge A Schippers said the central issue was the meaning and effect of Section 17(1) and whether the phrase “any person” excludes illegal foreigners. The Bench held that the phrase encompasses all road users and cannot be restricted by the RAF or the minister.
Directive and claim form changes trigger legal challenge
The RAF brought two appeals against decisions handed down by the High Court in Pretoria. Adam Mudawo, Wenile Simon Ndlovu, Bruce Mthokosizi Sibanda and Oyetunde Oneniyi Areo were among the successful applicants in the first matter. In the second, multiple claimants, including Lyton A and Takawira T, had already obtained court orders or settlement agreements against the RAF.
All respondents were foreign nationals injured in motor vehicle accidents in South Africa who had lodged claims under the Act. In June and July 2022, the RAF and the Minister of Transport introduced measures requiring foreign claimants to prove they were lawfully present in South Africa at the time of the accident. Those measures were challenged and set aside in the High Court, prompting the appeals before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court finds no basis to narrow the words ‘any person’
The court found the wording of Section 17(1) to be clear and unqualified, leaving no room for the exclusion the Fund argued for. It confirmed that the statutory language must be given its ordinary meaning in light of the Act’s broader purpose.
Judge Schippers said the RAF is obliged on the plain wording of Section 17(1) to compensate any person for any loss or damage suffered. The court rejected the argument that immigration legislation limits this right, finding no basis in the Act to exclude undocumented foreign nationals.
Judge Schippers added that on its plain language, Section 17(1) cannot be construed as excluding illegal foreigners. The court reinforced that Parliament did not intend any such limitation, noting that had the legislature intended to exclude a category of claimants, it could and would have said so.
The purpose of social protection weighs against exclusion
The judgment reaffirmed that the RAF is social security legislation designed to protect road accident victims as broadly as possible. Its purpose is to ensure that those injured through negligent driving receive compensation, even where recovery directly from a wrongdoer may not be possible.
Judge Schippers said the Act is social security legislation intended to give the greatest possible protection to persons who have suffered loss. The court found that excluding undocumented foreign nationals would undermine that purpose and deny relief to some of the most vulnerable road users.
Minister and RAF found to have acted beyond their powers
The court held that both the RAF and the minister acted outside their legal authority by introducing requirements that effectively shut out a category of claimants. The measures were not authorised by the Act and could not stand.
Judge Schippers found that the minister has no power to exclude any category of claimants from the social benefit scheme created by the Act. The court found that the conduct violated the principle of legality and that the exclusion of illegal foreigners is a violation of that principle.
Attempt to block payouts collapses on the same reasoning
In the second appeal, the RAF attempted to suspend court orders and prevent enforcement of warrants of execution against its assets, again on the basis that undocumented foreign nationals were not entitled to claim.
The court rejected that position, finding it rested on an incorrect interpretation of the law and could not justify interfering with valid court orders. Judge Schippers found the RAF’s interpretation to be wrong and held that the basis for suspending the orders therefore fell away. The court also stressed the finality of settlements, noting that the orders brought finality to the dispute between the parties.
Appeals dismissed with costs
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The ruling makes clear that RAF claims are open to any person injured in a motor vehicle accident in South Africa, regardless of immigration status, and that no administrative measure can override what the law plainly says.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
