17/03/2026
COMMON RAF EXCUSES / SPECIAL PLEASE TO PRO-LONG LITIGATION
In the Western Cape Division, the courts have consistently aligned with the national trend of rejecting the RAF's attempts to use administrative hurdles as a shield against litigation.
1. The Definitive Citation: Board Notice 271 of 2022
The Board Notice in question is Board Notice 271 of 2022, published on 6 May 2022.
While the lead judgment declaring this notice unlawful is from the Gauteng Division, it has binding persuasive authority and has been followed in the Western Cape.
* Main Citation: Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (046038/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 294 (20 March 2024).
* The Ruling: The Full Bench reviewed and set aside Board Notice 271 and the 2022 RAF 1 form. The court specifically noted that the RAF cannot create "gatekeeping" requirements that infringe on the right of access to courts (Section 34 of the Constitution).
2. Recent Western Cape Case Law
The Western Cape Division (WCHC) has been particularly active in dismissing the RAF’s "non-compliance" special pleas.
* Road Accident Fund v Kewana and Others (Case numbers: 1588/2023, 9574/2023, 15633/2023, 15632/2023, and 19801/2022).
* Date: 7 October 2025 (Reasons delivered).
* Finding: Pretorius AJ dismissed the RAF’s special pleas in four matters. The court held that the Fund is not entitled to reject claims that substantially comply with Section 24 of the Act.
* General WCHC Trend (2025): The WCHC has repeatedly ruled that the RAF cannot rely on internal "directives" or "board notices" to avoid liability for claims (see also Discovery Health related matters where the WCHC refused to follow the RAF's restrictive payment directives).
3. Rebutting the "Unregistered" Excuse
In your replication or at the pre-trial conference, you should rely on the following Western Cape legal principles:
* Administrative Autonomy vs. Judicial Process: The "unregistered" status is an internal administrative failure. Once Summons is served and litis contestatio is reached, the matter is under the jurisdiction of the Court, not the Fund's internal "Claims Management System."
* Section 24(5) Deeming Provision: If the RAF did not object to the validity of the claim within 60 days of lodgement, the claim is deemed to be valid in law in all respects. The "unregistered" excuse is an attempt to circumvent this statutory deeming provision.
* Rule 37 Sanctions: If the Fund attorney argues they cannot settle or discover because the claim is "unregistered," ask the Judge for a costs order de bonis propriis or an order striking the defense. The WCHC judges (especially in the Rule 37.8 "RAF Silo") have no patience for "system errors" as a legal defense.
Summary for your Reply
"The Defendant’s reliance on Board Notice 271 of 2022 is misplaced as said notice was declared unlawful and set aside in LPIIF v RAF [2024] ZAGPPHC 294. Furthermore, as per RAF v Kewana (WCHC 2025), the Defendant is not entitled to rely on administrative non-registration where substantial compliance with Section 24 has been met and litis contestatio has been REACHED.
Contct us at 082 788 082 788 1205
