Court gives claimants the green light in RAF battle

Following the decision of the court in the case of Road Accident Fund v Legal Practice Council and Others (134420/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 189 (21 February 2025), the Pretoria High Court struck the Road Accident Fund’s (RAF) subsequent urgent application from the roll, with punitive costs.

Following the decision of the court in the case of Road Accident Fund v Legal Practice Council and Others (134420/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 189 (21 February 2025), the Pretoria High Court struck the Road Accident Fund’s (RAF) subsequent urgent application from the roll, with punitive costs. The order has sent a clear message that our Courts will not tolerate continuing attempts to delay justice under the guise of urgency.

In the urgent application, the RAF sought further extension on the stay of execution steps from judgment creditors, effectively requesting the Court to delay its duty of paying out billions owed to successful claimants. This was not the RAF’s first attempt to shield itself from the enforcement of Court orders. 

Over recent years, the RAF has repeatedly approached the Courts seeking moratoria to pause the execution of judgments. These applications were granted as exceptional, time-bound measures to allow the RAF to reorganise its affairs to pay out the amounts owed to claimants. However, as the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) rightly observed in its press release dated 4 September 2025, such relief was never intended to become a recurring strategy for evading legal obligations.

In this instance, the Court was not persuaded and found that the RAF’s application lacked urgency. The Court struck the matter from the roll and awarded costs on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of both senior and junior counsel, a rare and stern sanction. This further highlights the Court’s stance towards serial litigation aimed at stalling enforcement.

The Court’s ruling in this matter is not just a procedural and administrative setback for the RAF; it marks a pivotal moment for claimants who have long endured delays in receiving compensation, despite having valid court orders against the RAF. On the strength of this order, successful claimants are now able to enforce their court orders and receive the compensation they are legally entitled to, bringing long-overdue relief and justice.

Following this judgment, several positive changes have emerged. The RAF has already disbursed R3.3 billion in outstanding claims within two weeks, with monthly payments expected to be around R4 billion going forward. In addition, the RAF’s interim board has also committed to, among other measures, bi-monthly reporting and direct engagement with legal representatives for claimants, aiming to resolve disputes and ensure accountability. These measures aim to resolve disputes more efficiently, enhance transparency, and ensure greater accountability across the claims process. 

This judgment gives claimants the green light to enforce their court orders and finally receive the compensation they are legally owed. By cutting through delays and holding the RAF accountable, the court has paved the way for more efficient resolution of claims, restoring trust in the process and easing the financial burdens of those who need it most.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

October 27, 2025
When agreements have limits

When agreements have limits

Maintenance agreements in South Africa have become increasingly popular between parents of minor children as a means of regulating their respective maintenance obligations outside of court. These agreements are a useful tool, allowing parents to exercise a degree of contractual freedom. However, their provisions remain subject to statutory regulation and the overarching principle that contracts must conform to public policy.

Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest