This blog is co-authored by Alistair Verhoogt, candidate attorney.

In September 2025, the High Court reinforced the Road Accident Fund’s statutory obligation to compensate victims of road accidents for all reasonable past hospital and medical expenses, even where those expenses have already been settled by a third party, such as a medical aid scheme. The court rejected arguments advanced by the RAF that sought to avoid liability on this basis, confirming that claimants remain entitled to recover the full amount of such expenses from the RAF.

The court’s approach is firmly rooted in the statutory framework governing the RAF, which is designed to ensure that victims of road accidents are fully compensated for their losses. The existence of a contract between the claimant and a third party such as medical aid cover is irrelevant to the RAF’s liability.

The court emphasised past judgments stating that the RAF cannot rely on internal directives to avoid its statutory obligations where the claimant has received payment from a third party. The principle of independence of third-party payments was highlighted: the RAF’s obligation is to the injured party, and any recovery from medical aid is a matter of private contract, not a limitation on the RAF’s liability.

This reinforcement by the High Court provides certainty for claimants, who can confidently claim the full amount of reasonable past medical expenses from the RAF, regardless of whether those expenses have already been paid by medical aid. For medical aids, their rights to recover amounts paid to the claimant by the RAF already covered by the medical aid remain enforceable against the claimant.

The court’s decision ensures that the statutory obligations of the RAF are upheld and that the financial burden of accident-related medical care does not fall unfairly on private institutions or individuals.

Maano Manavhela and Alistair Verhoogt

A.S.B and Another v Road Accident Fund (977/2020) [2025] ZANCHC 89 (11 September 2025)