By Kholofelo Maruma
For a long time, many Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims have failed not because they were weak, but because of technical issues. People who were clearly entitled to compensation often lost their claims over procedural points that had little to do with the merits of the case. That is what makes the recent decision in Louisa Maria Greyling v Road Accident Fund (Case No: 4459/2024) [2026] ZAECGHC (5 March 2026) so important. In this case, the High Court dealt with a simple but practical question: does sending a claim by courier count as delivery “by hand” as required by the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (the RAF Act)? The court answered the question in the affirmative. At first glance, this might seem like a small issue. In reality, it goes to the heart of how RAF claims are handled. The judgment shows a clear move away from rigid technical arguments towards a more sensible and fair approach.
The issue in simple terms
The law says that a RAF claim must either be sent by registered post or delivered by hand to one of the RAF’s offices (Section 24(1), read together with Regulation 2 of the RAF Regulations (2008). What the law does not say is what “delivered by hand” actually means. It also does not say who must do the delivery. In this case, the claimant’s attorneys used a courier to deliver the documents. The RAF received them, and one of its employees signed to confirm that they had arrived at their offices. In my view, that should have been the end of the matter. However, the RAF argued that this was not good enough and claimed that because the documents were delivered by a courier and not physically handed over by the claimant or her attorneys, the legal requirement had not been met. On that basis, the RAF contended that the claim had prescribed (Greyling v Road Accident Fund [2026] ZAECGHC, para 6). This kind of argument is not new. The RAF has often relied on technical points like this to challenge the validity of claims lodged to their offices.
What the court decided
The court did not accept the RAF’s argument. It found that delivery by courier does count as delivery by hand. The reasoning was straightforward: since the law does not provide the manner upon which “delivery by hand” may be conducted, delivery in the form of courier therefore meets the legal standard. The court also made it clear that there is no good reason to exclude courier services and found that if the RAF has received the claim and knows about it, then the purpose of the law has been met. In addition, it remarked that there is no sense in rejecting the claim just because it was delivered in a slightly different way (Greyling v Road Accident Fund [2026] ZAECGHC, para 11). In short, the court looked at what actually happened, not just at how it happened.
Why this matters
This decision matters because it challenges a pattern that has existed in RAF cases for years. Too often, claims have been defeated by technical arguments that do not affect the substance of the case. In this case, it was not in dispute that the RAF received the documents. There was proof of delivery and no apparent prejudice to the RAF. Yet the Fund still tried to rely on a technical point to avoid the claim. The court’s response was clear: that approach is unacceptable. The law should not be used to create unnecessary obstacles, especially where its purpose has already been achieved. Indeed, this is an important shift which suggests that courts are becoming less willing to allow technicalities to stand in the way of justice.
A more realistic approach
Another reason this judgment stands out is that it reflects how things actually work in practice. Courier services are used every day by attorneys. They are reliable, efficient, and provide clear proof that documents have been delivered. Registered post, on the other hand, is not always dependable. Delays and lost mail are not uncommon. Insisting on registered post as the only acceptable method would not make the system more reliable. The court’s decision recognises this reality. It accepts that the law must be applied in a way that makes sense in the real world. If a courier delivers the documents and the RAF receives them, then the job has been done.
Why the RAF’s argument falls flat
The RAF’s position in this case was difficult to justify. It was not arguing that it did not receive the claim. It was not saying that it was unaware of the claim. It simply argued that the method of delivery was wrong. That argument might make sense if the method of delivery caused some kind of a problem or prejudiced the Fund one way or another. But in this case, it did not. The documents arrived, and they were acknowledged, hence the court rejected the RAF’s contention. It saw it for what it was, a technical point with no real impact on the fairness of the process.
Concerns about the Judgment
Of course, not everyone will agree with the outcome. Some may argue that the court has gone beyond what the law says. They may say that if the Act does not mention courier delivery, then it should not be allowed. There is also the question of where to draw the line. If courier delivery is acceptable, what about email? What about online submissions? These are valid questions. However, the court’s decision does not open the floodgates. The key requirement remains that the RAF must receive the claim and acknowledge it in writing. That provides a clear and practical safeguard.
Access to Justice
At the end of the day, this case is about fairness. The law should not prevent people from pursuing valid claims because of minor technical issues. RAF claimants are often in difficult situations. They may be dealing with injuries, financial pressure, and long delays. Adding unnecessary procedural hurdles only makes things worse. By taking a practical approach, the court has made it easier for claimants to have their cases heard. That is exactly what the legal system is supposed to do.
Conclusion
The decision in Greyling v Road Accident Fund [2026] ZAECGHC is a welcomed and provides a much need jurisprudence. It brings common sense back into the interpretation of the RAF Act. By confirming that courier delivery is valid, the court has made it clear that what matters is whether the RAF received the claim, not how it was delivered. This judgment will likely influence future cases and reduce the number of claims that are challenged on technical grounds. More importantly, it reinforces the idea that the law should work for people, not against them. In a system where technicalities have too often stood in the way of justice, that is a step in the right direction.
Reference List
- Greyling v Road Accident Fund (Case No: 4459/2024) [2026] ZAECGHC (5 March 2026).
- Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
About the Author:
Kholofelo Maruma is a law student at the University of South Africa (UNISA) and a member of the International Forum of Researchers and Lecturers. He is also a member of and a mentee of the Afrikan Peer Growth Network. He writes in his personal capacity.