What is the Prescription Period in Hit and Run Claims? | SA Guide

In South Africa, a hit-and-run (or “unidentified driver”) road accident claim against the Road Accident Fund prescribes — that is, the right to sue is permanently lost — three years after the cause of action arose under the Road Accident Fund Act, read with the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The court has long applied the principle that the clock starts when the claimant knows, or ought reasonably to have known, the facts from which the right to claim arises; in a hit-and-run by definition the other driver’s identity is withheld, so the prescription period most often runs from the date of the collision itself. Where the driver is only identified later, the claimant can argue that the clock restarts from that later date of knowledge — but the argument must be pleaded and proved with contemporaneous evidence. Practical effect: lodge the RAF claim form promptly, keep records from day one, and issue summons before the three-year period expires, or the Fund may raise a special plea of prescription that defeats the claim before the merits are ever heard.

What the Hit-and-Run Prescription Rule Is, in Plain Terms

A prescription period is the legal time limit within which a claim must be brought; once it lapses, the right to sue is permanently lost and the claim cannot be revived except in the narrowest circumstances. For claims against the Road Accident Fund, the controlling legislation is the Road Accident Fund Act — currently the consolidated Act 56 of 1996 as amended, with the Road Accident Fund Act 4 of 2025 in staged commencement — read with the general prescription provisions of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

The starting rule is that an RAF claim prescribes three years after the cause of action arose — that is, three years after the date of the accident, or three years after the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have known of the cause of action, whichever applies. For hit-and-run matters, the second limb — three years from constructive date of knowledge — frequently determines the actual time bar, because the cause of action only truly crystallises once the claimant can plead the facts giving rise to the claim.

Why Hit-and-Run Is a Different Sub-Regime

In an ordinary identified-driver claim, the claim is brought against the driver and the driver’s insurer (with the RAF joined under the section 17 regime where the driver was uninsured at the time). A hit-and-run claim by definition involves an unidentified driver and is brought against the RAF directly from the outset, on the procedural framework set out in the RAF Regulations 21B and 22.

Certain verification steps differ precisely because the driver is unknown. Supporting evidence from the police docket, the “unidentified driver” attestation, and the date-of-knowledge averments are foregrounded in the pleadings from day one. The end result is that the same prescription regime applies, but the running of the clock — and the evidentiary burden on the claimant to explain any later start date — is the practical point of friction in hit-and-run matters.

How the Three-Year Clock Is Typically Calculated

The three-year period is counted from whichever of the following dates is established on the evidence:

Trigger event	When it applies
Date of collision	The default starting point, regardless of whether the other driver is identified.
Date damages became ascertainable	Used where injuries only manifest later (for example, a closed-head injury diagnosed months after the accident), under the deferred-damages line of authority.
Date the driver was identified	Used in hit-and-run matters where the driver is only traced later, potentially restarting prescription under the date-of-knowledge test.
Date of formal diagnosis	For late-manifesting injury, this can replace the accident date on a fact-dependent showing.

The working test most cited in South African RAF prescription disputes is the principle articulated in Truter v Road Accident Fund — that the cause of action arises when the claimant knows, or ought reasonably to have known, the facts from which the right to claim arises, not merely on the date of the negligent act itself. The same date-of-knowledge doctrine is engaged in later RAF prescription litigation, including the matter of Truter v Road Accident Fund (54790/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 230, which applied the test to a hit-and-run-style claim.

Prescription in Identified vs Unidentified Claims

The table below summarises how the prescription regime plays out across the common RAF claim categories. The principal difference is who is sued first, what date usually starts the clock, and where the practical risk lies.

Claim type	Driver known at claim start?	Party sued	Typical date-of-knowledge argument	Practical risk
Standard third-party RAF claim	Yes	Insurer first; RAF joined under section 17 where uninsured	Date of the collision	Routine; prescription rarely an issue if the claim is lodged in the first year
Identified-insurer repudiated claim	Yes	Insurer contesting liability	The collision date plus the date of the insurer’s repudiation letter	The insurer’s repudiation is a key evidentiary milestone
Hit-and-run / unidentified driver	No	RAF directly from the outset	The collision date, or where the driver is identified later — the date of identification	High prescription risk; courts regularly entertain special pleas raised by the Fund
Late-manifesting injury	Either	Either	Date of formal diagnosis, not the accident date	Rarely contested; usually resolves on the deferred-damages principle
Deceased-claimant matter	Either	RAF	Date of death, not the date of the accident	Heirs are bound by any prescription accrued by the deceased before death — careful estate-stage advice is essential

What Claimants Often Get Wrong

Across the hit-and-run matters the firm’s litigation team sees, four missteps recur:

• Waiting for the criminal case to wrap up before lodging the claim form. The criminal case and the RAF claim are separate tracks; the RAF does not require a criminal conviction before paying a claim.
• Assuming the clock only starts when the driver is caught. The courts have repeatedly held that the date-of-knowledge test runs from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of the cause of action — not from the date of identification.
• Treating the three-year prescription period as the only relevant time bar. RAF claims also carry a separate statutory claim-lodgement obligation, and failure to lodge the claim form within the time stated can defeat the claim on its own terms.
• Confusing the SAPS accident-report deadline with the claim deadline. The AR form and the RAF claim form are different processes on different timelines; conflating them is a common source of late lodgement.

Practical Steps Before the Time Bar Runs

1. Lodge the RAF claim form (the standard RAF 1 form) with the Fund as soon as reasonably possible. Lodgement is part of the protection against prescription and starts the Fund’s statutory adjudication process.
2. Confirm the SAPS accident-report (AR) number and the police docket reference, and keep a record of both. The docket is needed where criminal proceedings are eventually pursued and supports the “unidentified driver” averments.
3. Record the exact date of the collision, the date any injuries became diagnosable, and the date the other driver was identified — if at all.
4. Obtain and keep contemporaneous medical records. Even if the full RAF 4 serious-injury assessment is still pending, the records support the date-of-knowledge argument later.
5. Issue summons in the correct High Court division before the three-year period expires — issuing summons in court interrupts prescription under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
6. Instruct an attorney experienced in RAF litigation to assess whether the claim is properly constituted, which date-of-knowledge argument is defensible, and how to protect the file if the time bar is closer than the claimant realised.

Burger Huyser’s general litigation practice, run under Director Nadine Roesch-Prinsloo (Head of General Litigation, with MVA claims and insurance repudiations listed as a named specialisation in the firm profile), is built around exactly the High Court motion and special-plea work that hit-and-run prescription disputes turn on.

What Happens When Prescription Is Pleaded

The RAF may raise a “special plea” of prescription in its plea — this is a separate, preliminary point that delays the trial. If upheld, the claim is dismissed without the merits ever being heard. Re-opening a time-barred claim is exceptionally difficult; condonation requires the claimant to explain why the time bar was missed and to demonstrate that the merits are strong enough to justify overlooking the delay.

Asymmetric risk: A successful special plea defeats the claim entirely, whereas the only upside of waiting past the bar is unforced exposure. Where the file is even close to the time bar, the safer course is to issue protective summons and let the merits be argued on their own footing.

Where the Makgati 2025 Judgment Fits

The matter of Makgati v Road Accident Fund (7316/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 27 is a recent Limpopo Local Division judgment directly engaging how the Fund deploys the prescription defence. The court dismissed the Fund’s special plea of prescription in that matter, holding that section 23 of the RAF Act prescribes the prescription regime for section 17 claims only — not for a separate contractual claim arising from the Fund’s handling of the underlying claim. The judgment is useful in two ways for a hit-and-run claimant: it confirms that prescription is contested as a live defence in contemporary RAF practice, and it draws a sharp line around which sub-regime of the RAF Act the prescription rule applies to.

Practically, the case underscores a point the firm’s litigation team reiterates on every hit-and-run file: contemporaneous record-keeping from day one — every clinic visit, every communication, every police docket entry — is the difference between a defensible date-of-knowledge argument and one the court is invited to reject.

Where the Claim Is Filed: Court by Court

The prescription rule is national under the Road Accident Fund Act and the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, but the High Court division where summons is issued and where any plea is argued does depend on where the matter sits on the map. The Gauteng Division of the High Court, sitting in both Johannesburg and Pretoria, handles the bulk of contested RAF matters given the concentration of motor-vehicle incidents and claimant law firms in the province. Recent case law engaging the prescription defence, such as the Makgati judgment out of the Limpopo Local Division, shows that prescription disputes are litigated across every division on a regular basis and are not province-bound.

Claimants based in cities without a local High Court seat file in the nearest division of issue — Gauteng-based claimants file in the Gauteng Division, Free State claimants in the Free State Division, and so on, unless the matter is transferred. Burger Huyser Attorneys fields RAF and MVA-litigation matters from the Linden head office at 49 First Avenue, Linden, Randburg (011 888 0246) and from the Roodepoort branch at 16 Galena Avenue, Helderkruin (011 668 0030) — both of which sit within the Gauteng Division’s area of operations, which is the practical court-runway for Gauteng-based claimants looking to issue summons before the prescription time bar runs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the prescription period for a hit-and-run claim in South Africa?

Three years from when the cause of action arose. In a hit-and-run that is most commonly the date of the accident, although the date-of-knowledge line of cases means the clock can shift to a later date where the claimant could not reasonably have known of the cause of action before then.

Does the prescription period start from the date of the accident or from when the driver is identified?

The default position is the date of the accident. Courts have recognised that where the driver is only identified later, that later date can determine when prescription began to run — but the claimant must plead and prove the later date of knowledge with contemporaneous records. Identification happening late is not by itself enough to extend the time bar.

Can I claim from the RAF if the driver is never caught?

Yes — hit-and-run claims are brought directly against the RAF, which is obliged to compensate identified victims of motor-vehicle collisions involving unknown or uninsured drivers, subject to the provisions of the RAF Act and the regulations. The criminal non-detection of the driver does not prevent the civil claim against the Fund, but the claim must still be lodged and prosecuted within the prescription period.

What if I only realise later that my injury is serious?

The courts have long held that a cause of action only arises when the claimant knows, or ought reasonably to have known, the relevant facts — including the nature and extent of the injury. Where serious injury only becomes apparent months or years after the accident, the clock may start from the date of diagnosis rather than the accident date. This is a fact-dependent argument and must be supported by medical records from the date of first onset.

What happens if I file after the three-year period?

Once the period has expired, the claim is permanently out of time. The RAF will raise a special plea of prescription and the claim will be dismissed without the merits being heard. Re-opening a time-barred claim is exceptionally difficult; condonation is rarely granted and requires a strong explanation plus clear prospects of success.

Can I lodge my own RAF claim or do I need an attorney?

A claimant may lodge the RAF claim form personally, and many do, but once a special plea of prescription is anticipated or raised — which is common in hit-and-run matters — the matter becomes adversarial High Court litigation. Instructing an attorney experienced in RAF matters substantially improves the prospects of either defeating the special plea or, where the time bar has genuinely run, advising on the limits of any condonation application.