Concourt sets limit on judges’ power in RAF settlementsJudges ‘should not interfere’ with agreements between litigants

• Published date: 26 April 2024
• Publication title: Sowetan (Johannesburg, South Africa)

The decision stems from a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim for R1.3m by Tumelo Mafisa that had been “unilaterally deleted” by the high court. Mafisa was a passenger in a car that collided with a tree and suffered head and back injuries that required surgery. Mafisa then claimed compensation from the RAF

The RAF is a statutory body established to compensate victims of road traffic accidents. It is funded by a fuel levy on sales of petrol and diesel – currently R2.18/l. Victims can claim for medical expenses and loss of earnings.

The claim ended up in the Bloemfontein high court a few years ago to decide how much should be paid. But before the trial ended, Mafisa and the RAF agreed to settle the matter entirely, with the RAF agreeing to pay R350,000 for “general damages” Mafisa suffered.

Mafisa was unable to work as a result of the accident and an actuary calculated he had lost R1.3m in earnings as a result, which the RAF also agreed to pay.

Mafisa and the RAF drafted a settlement agreement indicating the fund would pay a total of R1.6m and asked that the settlement agreement be made an order of court.

Settlement agreements don’t have to become orders of court, though they provide finality for disputing litigants and carry the power of the court.

However, judge Sylvia Daniso struck out the R1.3m claim for loss of earnings entirely, saying she was not satisfied with the calculations. According to Mafisa, the judge did so “unilaterally ... and without affording any opportunity for input by the parties”.

Mafisa was refused leave to appeal until the Constitutional Court decided to hear the matter last year. The RAF did not...