Good news for road accident victims is that the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, overturned directives issued by the Road Accident Fund which places obstacles in the way of issuing new claims.
While eight claimants turned to the court to have the directives overturned, the court noted that the matter involved many other claimants who had tried to lodge claims since the directives were issued by the fund.
Among the applications were suppliers of medical services to road accident victims, who were also hampered by the directives in lodging claims.
They asked a full bench - three judges - to review and set aside the decisions to adopt and implement a management directive, a supplier communication notice, a board notice and a claim form substitution notice issued by the RAF relating to the manner in which it receives and deals with claims that are submitted to it.
It was argued that with the directives in place, it made it nearly impossible to lodge a claim. Thus, the argument went, the RAF was infringing on the constitutional rights of claimants.
In terms of these directives and an amended claim form, claimants must attach a host of documents, such as a comprehensive accident report and hospital and medical records, before they are allowed to even lodge a claim.
In many cases these documents are not yet available to claimants or their attorneys at the stage of lodging the claim. Many feared that their claims might lapse by the time they were able to meet the fund’s requirements.
It was argued that all role-players in the RAF compensation scheme would feel the practical, administrative, financial, and logistical complications imposed by the directives. It was said that it would be particularly prejudicial for direct claimants left without assistance or legal representation to protect or enforce their right to compensation.
The court was also told that at no stage was there any consideration afforded to the rights of the public by calling for participation and input in respect of the decisions. The applicants argued that it was done without the implementation of any procedurally fair processes.
The RAF submitted that the lists of documents required in terms of the management directive would facilitate better and more prompt evaluation of claims. It said submitting all the documents at the time claims were lodged could lead to the speedy processing of the claims and, in some cases, to possible settlements.
The RAF in the past complained that it had a host of claim forms, without the necessary documentation, which hampered it in processing claims.
Judge Ingrid Opperman, who wrote the concurring judgment, said what the RAF had done through the implementation of the decisions and the substituted RAF1, form is to summarily impose conditions for the submission of what it regards as a valid claim.
She found that the RAF exceeded its powers in issuing and applying the board notice in a peremptory way without statutory authorisation. The decisions and the substituted RAF1 form were neither authorised by the Road Accident Act, nor rationally connected to the achievement of the purpose of the act.
The making of the decisions and their implementation were so unreasonable and so inimical to the purpose and provisions of the act that the RAF, in doing so, acted in a manifestly unreasonable and unlawful manner, she said in setting aside the directives.
In slapping the RAF with a punitive costs order, the judge said: “In circumstances such as the present where the RAF, through the unlawful decisions it has taken, has subverted the very purpose for which it was created, to the detriment of the very persons it was established to protect, we are of the view that a punitive order for costs is appropriate.”
Pretoria News