Thousands of Claims Could Be Forced Back to Square One After Landmark SCA Ruling
South Africa, 4 May 2026 – A landmark Supreme Court of Appeal ruling against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) is set to trigger widespread disruption across South Africa’s personal injury landscape, potentially forcing thousands of claims back to the starting line.
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 30 April 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the RAF’s appeal and declared key changes to its claims process unlawful, including stricter requirements that had led to the rejection of numerous claims.
The ruling confirms that both the RAF and the Minister of Transport acted outside their legal powers when introducing new requirements to the RAF1 claim form, which is the mandatory gateway for compensation claims.
According to Kirstie Haslam, Partner at DSC Attorneys, the real impact of the judgment will now be felt by claimants caught in the system over the past few years.
“This is a significant legal victory for claimants, but it creates a complex and potentially chaotic situation on the ground,” says Haslam. “Many claims that were rejected under the unlawful requirements may now need to be re-lodged, effectively restarting the process.”
The court found that the RAF imposed additional administrative hurdles that made it harder for victims to access compensation, undermining the purpose of the Act, which is to support road accident victims.
The ruling raises urgent questions for claims already in the legal system.
Where claims were rejected and litigation has progressed, those matters may now face procedural complications, including the possibility that claims must be resubmitted using the older, legally valid process.
“This creates uncertainty not just for claimants, but for attorneys, insurers, and the courts,” Haslam explains. “We are likely to see disputes around whether matters can proceed as they are, or whether they must be reset entirely.”
The court has ordered that claimants whose submissions were previously rejected must be allowed to re-lodge their claims by 30 September 2026, potentially reopening thousands of cases.
One of the most significant implications of the ruling is for individuals who attempted to submit claims directly to the RAF but were turned away due to the stricter requirements.
“There are likely many people who simply gave up after their claims were rejected,” says Haslam. “This judgment effectively gives them a second chance to claim compensation they may have been unfairly denied.”
The court confirmed that the RAF’s stricter requirements had a direct impact on claimants’ rights, including their ability to lodge valid claims and avoid prescription.
Until new regulations are lawfully introduced, the RAF must revert to the older 2008 claim form, which the court reaffirmed as the valid standard.
The Minister of Transport has been given six months to introduce a revised claims process that complies with legal and procedural requirements.
Haslam notes that while the judgment restores legal clarity, it places additional strain on an already overburdened system.
“The intention of tightening requirements may have been administrative efficiency, but the court has made it clear that this cannot come at the expense of access to justice,” she says. “What happens next will depend on how quickly and effectively the RAF and the Department of Transport respond. In the meantime, claimants need to act quickly to protect their rights.”
