Court rejects RAF bid to block accident claim over unproven settlement

JOHANNESBURG – The Gauteng High Court has dismissed an attempt by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to block a motor‑vehicle accident compensation claim, ruling that the fund failed to prove the matter had been settled and was procedurally barred from relying on the defence.


In a judgment delivered on 1 July, Acting Judge CB Bhoola found in favour of Godfrey Sibusiso Hlatshwayo, who was injured in a collision on 23 March 2015.

The RAF argued that Hlatshwayo’s claim had been settled in March 2017, when he pursued the matter directly without legal representation. It claimed the alleged settlement provided for 50 percent liability in the plaintiff’s favour and an undertaking for future medical expenses.

However, the court heard that the RAF could not produce the original signed settlement agreement, saying it could not locate the document nearly a decade later. Instead, it relied on a document generated in November 2024, signed only by the RAF and not by the plaintiff.

The court also noted that the RAF’s defence had already been struck out after it failed to comply with an earlier order requiring it to attend a pre‑trial conference. Despite this, the fund did not apply to reinstate its plea or amend its papers before raising the settlement argument during the hearing.

Bhoola ruled that once a defence has been struck out, a party cannot rely on it unless it successfully applies for reinstatement or amendment.

“The defendant is not entitled to rely upon the defence of settlement,” the judge said, adding that the defence had neither been pleaded nor preserved.

On the alleged settlement itself, the court found that the RAF had failed to prove that a valid compromise had been reached.

“The defendant has also not established the existence of a valid settlement agreement or compromise between the parties,” Bhoola ruled.

The judge held that the 2024 document, signed only by the RAF, did not demonstrate consensus and amounted merely to an offer that had never been accepted by the plaintiff.

As a result, the court dismissed the RAF’s preliminary objection, ordered that Hlatshwayo’s claim proceed in accordance with applicable procedures, and directed the RAF to pay the costs associated with the preliminary point.

The judgment reinforces the principle that litigants are bound by their pleadings and that settlement agreements must be supported by clear evidence of mutual agreement before they can extinguish a claim, a point frequently highlighted in South African civil procedure.