On 29 May 2025, the Gauteng High Court highlighted the far-reaching implications of submitting a claim after the statutory period has expired, as well as the difficulties that arise when key facts remain unsubstantiated. The judgment serves as a warning to brokers, attorneys, and insured individuals alike: missing critical deadlines can extinguish a claim, even if liability might otherwise have been established.
The claimant sustained serious injuries on 19 October 2013 in a single vehicle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of an unidentified truck driver. Although the claimant instructed his attorneys to lodge a claim with the Road Accident Fund (RAF), they failed to submit it before the applicable prescription period ran its course. Viewing this as professional negligence, the claimant sued his attorneys for allowing the claim to prescribe.
Although the attorneys effectively admitted that the claim had prescribed on their watch, the core issue in the dispute was whether the claimant would have had a valid case against the RAF in the first place, had the claim been submitted on time.
At the trial, the claimant provided inconsistent accounts of the accident. His initial statements indicated that he had collided with a pole after being blinded by bright headlights from an oncoming truck. Later versions inferred that the truck’s trailer had physically struck his car, causing it to spin and roll. These contradictions, revealed during cross-examination of the claimant’s police statement, the accident report, and his oral testimony, led the court to conclude that the claimant had not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that his accident was caused by the negligence of the unidentified truck driver. As a result, the claimant could not show that he would likely have succeeded against the RAF, thereby nullifying his professional negligence claim against the attorneys.
From an insurance law perspective, particularly for brokers who facilitate claims, there are two key lessons:
First, timelines are non-negotiable. Regardless of the merits, a claim that is lodged after the time period for prescription has expired will almost always fail. This case underscores the professional and legal responsibility brokers (and other intermediaries), and attorneys have to ensure that all claims are lodged or reported before a claim prescribes.
Second, a clear and consistent factual foundation is crucial. Even if the agent overlooks the prescription period, proving that a claim would have been successful if lodged on time is an essential element of a professional negligence action. Where the underlying facts are riddled with contradictions and fail to establish liability in the first instance, the claimant’s prospects for obtaining redress, whether against the original defendant or the negligent late filing broker, are significantly diminished.
Essentially, the claimant’s failure to lodge a timely claim was only part of the problem. Equally fatal to his cause was the challenge of persuading the RAF that the unidentified truck driver’s negligence caused the accident. For brokers or attorneys handling personal injury matters, this case illustrates the need for prompt reporting, rigorous adherence to statutory deadlines, and the early assembly of a clear, consistent factual foundation. Missing these critical steps may cost both the injured claimant and the professional intermediaries dearly if a good claim later dissolves under judicial scrutiny.
Thiathu Goodwin Mamafha v. TS Makhubela Incorporated & Another