The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) is prohibited from refusing compensation to individuals on the basis that they are in South Africa illegally.
SCA Dismisses RAF Appeals
The court dismissed two appeals brought by the RAF regarding the interpretation of section 17(1) of the RAF Act. The central legal question was whether the phrase “any person” entitled to claim compensation for loss or damage excluded illegal foreigners.
In the first appeal, the SCA upheld a Pretoria high court ruling that the section does not exclude illegal foreigners. The second appeal concerned an order that prevented the RAF from blocking claimants who wished to proceed with a warrant of execution against the fund’s assets.
The respondents involved in these legal challenges are foreign nationals who sustained multiple injuries in motor vehicle accidents and sought compensation for their losses and damages.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict began on June 21, 2022, when the RAF’s COO issued a management directive. This directive required foreign claimants to provide documentary proof that they were legally in South Africa at the time of their accident.
In July 2022, the transport minister furthered this requirement by publishing a recent claim form in the Government Gazette. This form likewise required proof of legal status to process claims.
By August 2022, claimants launched a high court application to set aside these decisions. They argued that the moves violated the principle of legality and infringed upon rights to equality, human dignity, healthcare, and access to courts.
The Legal Arguments
The RAF’s CEO contended that the social benefit scheme was not designed or intended to benefit people in South Africa illegally. The fund argued that the RAF Act should be interpreted alongside the Immigration Act.
The RAF cited section 25 of the Immigration Act, which distinguishes between illegal foreigners and permanent residents. They also pointed to section 44, which requires organs of state to report illegal foreigners, and section 49(4), which makes it an offence to intentionally facilitate public services to them.
Conversely, the claimants argued that the RAF Act must be interpreted to provide the greatest possible protection to third parties, meaning “any person” must include illegal foreigners.
The Final Ruling
Judge of appeal Ashton Schippers, delivering a unanimous judgment, stated that statutory interpretation must consider the text, context, and purpose of a provision. He found that section 17(1) explicitly obliges the fund to compensate “any person” for loss or damage resulting from a motor vehicle accident.
The judge concluded that, based on its plain language, section 17(1) cannot be construed as excluding illegal foreigners. The court subsequently reviewed and set aside the previous decisions made by the RAF and the transport minister.
Potential Implications
As a result of this ruling, claimants who were previously denied access to the fund due to their legal status may now be able to pursue their claims. It’s likely that the RAF will be required to adjust its claim forms and internal directives to comply with the court’s interpretation.
the dismissal of the second appeal suggests that claimants may now proceed with warrants of execution against the fund’s assets to recover owed compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can foreigners in South Africa illegally claim from the Road Accident Fund?
Yes, the Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that the RAF cannot refuse to pay compensation to people even if they are in South Africa illegally.
What did the RAF’s 2022 management directive require?
The directive required that any foreign claimant provide documentary proof that they were legally in South Africa at the time of the accident.
Why did the court rule in favor of the claimants?
The court found that the plain language of section 17(1) of the RAF Act refers to “any person” and contains no limitations excluding foreign nationals, unlike other legislation such as the Social Assistance Act.
Do you believe the plain language of legislation should always grab precedence over other regulatory acts?