In a January 2025 judgment the high court a dealt with the prescription of a claim for damages against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) due to an alleged under-settlement. The claimant, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2007, claimed that the RAF failed to exercise its legal duty of care, resulting in her receiving inadequate compensation for her injuries. The central issue in this case was whether the claimant’s claim had prescribed and whether the RAF had breached its duty of care.
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 1 January 2007. In 2008, the RAF approached the claimant directly to negotiate a settlement. The claimant, without legal representation, attended a medico-legal examination with an orthopaedic surgeon. The RAF made an initial settlement offer, which the claimant rejected. However, she was later induced to accept a second offer of R224,812.53, along with an undertaking to cover future medical expenses in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The RAF did not offer any compensation for loss of earnings, past or future, and advised the claimant that her claim would prescribe if she did not accept the offer.
In 2019, the claimant consulted an attorney regarding her will and was advised that her claim against the RAF might have been grossly under-settled. The attorney investigated the matter and found that, based on the severity of her injuries and the expert report, the claimant’s claim was indeed under-settled. Consequently, the claimant issued summons against the RAF on 21 November 2019, seeking damages in excess of R3.5 million.
The primary legal issue was whether the claimant’s claim had prescribed. The RAF contended that the claimant’s claim was instituted in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act, which required the claim to be lodged within two years from the date of the accident and summons to be served within five years to interrupt prescription. The claimant argued that her claim was based on the RAF’s breach of its legal duty of care and that prescription only began to run when she became aware of the under-settlement in 2019.
The court examined the facts and legal principles surrounding the prescription of the claimant’s claim. It found that the claimant’s claim was premised on the RAF’s breach of its legal duty of care. The court referenced Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, which stipulates that a debt is not deemed to be due until the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises. The court determined that the claimant only gained knowledge of the under-settlement in 2019 when she consulted with her attorney.
The court also considered the principle that people rely on the advice of legal practitioners as they are not knowledgeable in the law and its intricacies. The court emphasised that prescription begins to run when the creditor knows or should reasonably know that a wrong has been committed and the facts giving rise to it. In this case, the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge until 2019, nor could she reasonably have acquired such knowledge.
The court dismissed the RAF’s special plea of prescription with costs, holding that the claimant’s claim had not prescribed. The court declared the RAF liable for 100% of the claimant’s proven or agreed damages arising from the injuries sustained in the 2007 accident.
The court’s decision highlights that ignorance of the law and relevant facts may not be a bar to claiming relief.
Moremedi v Road Accident Fund (86838/19) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1338 (18 December 2024)