- The High Court has confirmed that delivering a RAF claim by courier counts as ‘delivery by hand’ under Section 24(1)(b) of the RAF Act.
- The RAF’s technical attempt to block the claim was dismissed after the court found that all legal requirements had been met.
- The judgment reinforces a claimant-friendly reading of the RAF Act, supporting easier access to justice for road accident victims.
The High Court in Gqeberha has clarified that claimants can lodge claims with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) using courier services. The court rejected a technical challenge that tried to invalidate this method of delivery.
The case began when Louisa Maria Greyling filed a claim against the RAF after she was injured as a passenger in a car accident on 8 August 2021, on the N2 between Gqeberha and Humansdorp. The vehicle, driven by her husband, left the road and overturned.
The RAF argued that Greyling’s claim should not be allowed, claiming she had failed to comply with Section 24(1)(b) of the RAF Act. At the heart of the dispute was whether sending documents by courier counted as "delivery by hand".
Greyling’s lawyers first sent her claim to the RAF by courier on 8 March 2024. The RAF acknowledged receiving the documents on 18 March, but asked for more paperwork and returned the claim.
Greyling’s legal team then sent an updated claim form and supporting documents by courier to the RAF’s East London offices on 13 June 2024. An RAF employee, L Xolisa, signed for the delivery at 2.52pm. Summons was served on the RAF in November 2024.
The parties agreed to a separation of issues, limiting the proceedings to the question of compliance with Section 24(1)(b).
Greyling’s advocate, B Pienaar, argued that the real question was whether the RAF had actually received the claim, which everyone agreed it had. He pointed to a previous case where a claim left in the RAF’s mailbox after hours was accepted as a valid delivery by hand. By that logic, he said, a courier delivery, especially one with a signed receipt, should also count.
But the RAF’s lawyer, N Dlamini, argued that the law only allows registered post or personal delivery. He insisted that couriers are independent and not the claimant’s agents, stating, “the courier’s hand is not the hand of the claimant.”
Court’s reasoning
Judge DO Potgieter found that the issue was novel. No court had yet ruled on whether courier delivery qualifies as delivery by hand under Section 24(1)(b).
The court held that the wording of the section does not limit who may deliver a claim. Instead, it identifies where and to whom delivery must be made. Judge Potgieter explained that the section only circumscribes the recipients and the place of delivery of the claim, and rejected the argument that delivery must be effected personally by the claimant or their representative.
He stressed that what matters is that claims are properly delivered and received, not who physically drops them off.
Judge Potgieter rejected the notion that delivery requires personal service. Instead, he found that delivery under Section 24(1)(b) means handing over the claim at the proper address, namely the principal, branch or regional office of the Fund.
The judge emphasised that the RAF Act is meant to protect the rights of accident victims. Its rules should be interpreted in a way that helps, not hinders, access to compensation.
On this basis, the court found no good reason to exclude courier delivery from the acceptable ways to submit a claim.
Order and outcome
In the end, the court found that Greyling had met all the requirements and that the RAF’s technical objection had no merit.
The judge dismissed the RAF’s objection, ordered them to pay Greyling’s legal costs, and postponed the rest of the case for now.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
