Road Accident Fund v Sarah Wilson Lewis (1209/2023) [2025] ZASCA 174 (18 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Road Accident Fund v Sarah Wilson Lewis
Citation: Road Accident Fund v Sarah Wilson Lewis (1209/2023) [2025] ZASCA 174
Date: 18 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it deals with significant questions of constitutional law, particularly the right to have disputes resolved fairly in accordance with the law, as outlined in Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. It further engages with procedural aspects relating to amendments to pleadings, the implications of admissions in pleadings, and the criteria for granting leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. Furthermore, it explores the parameters of what constitutes a valid compromise in legal disputes, essential for legal practitioners in the context of litigation strategy.

Importantly, the judgment addresses whether a previously agreed settlement can be voided based on a later emergent view by a new expert, thereby touching upon core principles of contract and tort law, particularly concerning the expectations set by expert testimony in legal proceedings. Such principles have implications not only for future cases regarding similar fact patterns but also for the broader understanding of procedural justice in South African law.

The implications of the ruling for the legal framework governing procedural fairness in amendments to pleadings, the treatment of psychiatric injury claims, and the weight afforded to expert evidence will contribute to the understanding and practice in litigation involving the Road Accident Fund and similar entities.

Cases Cited

1. Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v South African Revenue Service [2003] ZASCA 76; [2003] 4 All SA 37 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 292 (SCA).
2. Mulaudzi v Old Mutual Life Insurance Company (South Africa) Limited and Others [2017] ZASCA 88; [2017] 3 All SA 520 (SCA); 2017 (6) SA 90 (SCA).
3. Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape Province v Y N obo E N (056/2021) [2023] ZASCA 32 (30 March 2023).
4. Osman v Standard Bank National Credit Corporation Ltd 1985 (2) SA 378 (C).
5. President Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Moodley 1964 (4) SA 109 (T).
6. Moolman v Estate Moolman 1927 CPD 27.
7. Coppermoon Trading 13 (Pty) Ltd v Government of the Province of the Eastern Cape and Another [2019] ZAECBHC 16; 2020 (3) SA 391 (ECB).
8. Frenkel, Wise & Co Ltd v Cuthbert 1947 (4) SA 715 (C).

Legislation Cited

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 34
• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

• Supreme Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 10 and Rule 10A

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the Road Accident Fund's application for reconsideration concerning its prior refusal to amend its plea in a case involving a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of the respondent's husband. The case revolved around whether the applicant could retract a previous admission concerning liability after receiving a conflicting expert opinion. The court found that the RAF's application did not meet the stringent criteria for reinstatement under the Superior Courts Act, as it failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a valid basis for vacating a settled compromise.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues addressed in this case included:

• The nature and impact of the refusal of the RAF's application to amend its plea and whether this constituted a violation of its rights to a fair public hearing as per Section 34 of the Constitution.
• The validity of the compromise reached between the parties and whether it was based on a mutual or common misunderstanding of a material fact.
• Whether the RAF's proposed amendment was made in good faith or mala fide.
• The authority of the SCA to grant leave to appeal following a refusal from the High Court.

Held

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Accident Fund's application for reconsideration was dismissed. It ruled that the RAF did not fulfill the necessary requirements for the reinstatement of a lapsed application for leave to appeal. The court found that the initial compromise between the parties was valid, and the amendment sought by the RAF was mala fide and lacked the requisite foundation.

THE FACTS

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in November 2006, which resulted in the death of Sarah Wilson Lewis's husband. Following the accident, Lewis instituted a claim against the Road Accident Fund for damages related to loss of support, medical expenses, and general damages due to emotional distress stemming from the accident. The RAF initially admitted liability for 100% of the respondent's proven damages, which included psychiatric injuries diagnosed by jointly appointed experts. Subsequently, the RAF sought to amend its plea to withdraw its admission based on a later report from a new expert who disputed the causal connection between the accident and the respondent's psychiatric injuries. This request for an amendment was firmly opposed by Lewis, who asserted that the RAF had already compromised the matter of causation, making the withdrawal impermissible.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide several legal questions surrounding:

1. Whether to reinstate the lapsed application for leave to appeal, considering the applicable procedural rules and the RAF's reasons for non-compliance.
2. The nature of the compromise reached between the parties and if any common mistakes had led to its establishment, potentially rendering it void.
3. Whether the amendment sought by the RAF intended to withdraw its admission was made in good faith or mala fide, impacting its legitimacy under procedural law.

ANALYSIS

In its reasoning, the SCA underscored the importance of procedural adherence and the need for litigants to diligently manage their appeals. The court referenced principles from Uitenhage and Mulaudzi regarding the necessity of providing sufficient grounds for applications of condonation, reinforcing the idea that mere non-compliance does not suffice to secure an amendment. The court also emphasized the relevance of expert testimony in establishing grounds for compromise in tort cases. It concluded that the existence of a later expert opinion does not retroactively invalidate earlier agreements based on expert consensus if all parties operated under the same understanding at the time of the compromise.

The court reiterated that an applicant must prove a bona fide intention and provide thorough reasons for their actions when seeking an amendment, particularly when it challenges previously admitted facts or agreements. The SCA further concluded that no exceptional circumstances warranted reinstatement, as the RAF was unable to satisfactorily explain its procedural missteps or demonstrate how allowing the appeal would prevent grave injustice.

REMEDY

The Supreme Court of Appeal's final order was to dismiss the Road Accident Fund's application for reconsideration under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, with costs awarded in favor of the respondent, including the costs of two counsels. The court held that the application did not warrant extraordinary consideration and that the established legal framework adequately addressed the issues raised.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case established several key legal principles pertinent to civil litigation, particularly concerning amendments to pleadings and the weight of expert evidence.

• The necessity for a party seeking to amend a plea to demonstrate a bona fide reason for the amendment, particularly when withdrawing an admission, as such maneuvers are closely scrutinized for potential mala fide motives.
• The importance of a common factual basis for compromises in legal agreements, underscoring that unilateral assumptions held by one party do not suffice to void a contract if both parties operated under shared grounds.
• The framework delineating the extraordinary nature of reconsideration applications under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, emphasizing that only demonstrated exceptional circumstances can justify such requests.

Ultimately, the ruling reaffirms the legal duties of litigants to adhere to established procedures while pursuing fair resolutions to disputes in the judicial system.