The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has confirmed the Road Accident Fund (RAF) cannot exclude foreigners from claiming compensation, regardless of their immigration status.
The court adopted a strict interpretation of section 17(1) of the RAF Act, which obliges the fund to compensate “any person” who suffers loss or injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. It held that this wording is deliberately broad and contains no limitation based on citizenship or legal residence.
The RAF and the minister of transport introduced the limitation through administrative directives, but the court found those measures unlawful and invalid.
The ruling ends the RAF’s effort, initiated in 2022, to require foreign claimants to prove they were legally in South Africa during an accident. The directive and the amended RAF 1 claim form imposed that requirement as a condition for lodging claims.
Courts had already rejected this approach, finding it amounted to an attempt to amend the act without legislative authority. The SCA has now confirmed that position and made clear only parliament can alter the scope of the act or the class of beneficiaries.
For the RAF, the judgment expands liability in practical terms. The fund must now process and pay claims from all qualifying accident victims in South Africa, including undocumented foreigners. It cannot rely on immigration status to reject claims.
This removes an administrative mechanism the RAF used to manage its claims burden and limits its ability to control exposure through internal directives.
The judgment also carries direct consequences for litigation. Claimants whose cases were rejected or delayed under the 2022 directive can now revive or pursue those claims. The court also reaffirmed that settlement agreements and court orders granted in favour of foreign claimants remain binding.
The RAF cannot avoid payment by relying on an interpretation of the act that the courts have now rejected. This is likely to increase enforcement actions, particularly if payments were withheld pending the outcome of the appeal.
The financial implications are also immediate. The RAF operates as a publicly funded social security scheme and already faces structural deficits, administrative delays and a growing backlog of claims. The removal of restrictions on foreign claimants will increase the volume of enforceable claims and add pressure to the fund’s liabilities and cash flow.
The judgment does not create new rights in law, but it restores access that the RAF had attempted to limit in practice.
The court reaffirmed that the RAF Act is designed to provide the widest possible protection to road users, in line with constitutional principles of equality. Excluding claimants based on immigration status undermines that purpose.
The judgment leaves the state with fewer administrative tools to contain costs in the existing framework. Any attempt to restrict eligibility will now require legislative amendment and will probably face constitutional scrutiny.
Proposals such as the Road Accident Benefit Scheme or hybrid compensation models are likely to return to the centre of policy debate. The current fault-based system remains heavily dependent on litigation and is widely regarded as inefficient and financially unsustainable. By affirming broad access to compensation, the SCA has increased the urgency of reform rather than resolving the system’s underlying weaknesses.
In practical terms, the judgment narrows the RAF’s discretion and widens its obligations. The fund must compensate all qualifying claimants, cannot use internal directives to limit liability, and remains bound by existing court orders and settlements. The result is a system that is legally clarified but institutionally strained, with rising exposure and limited short-term mechanisms to contain it.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.