Road Accident Fund v Schuurmann Van Den Heever & Slabbert Inc and Others (Appeal) (A300/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 530 (28 May 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: In the matter between: ROAD ACCIDENT FUND and SCHUURMANN VAN DEN HEEVER & SLABBERT INC, INNES MUSERUA COSSA, GERHARD VAN DER MERWE, DIANA SEBOKO, MELITA MA NGA KA, and others
Citation: Case No. A300/2024
Date: Orders dated 23 March 2023; subsequent proceedings and appeal considerations up to 4 July 2024

Reportability

This case is reportable because it involves significant procedural and substantive issues regarding the enforcement of court orders in motor vehicle collision claims and the administration of delayed payments to multiple respondents. The judgment highlights critical concerns over the timely execution of judicial orders as mandated by the Superior Courts Act and demonstrates the potential abuse of procedural mechanisms in appeals, particularly under section 18(4). It is an important reference for ensuring that appeals which should be expedited are not unduly delayed, thereby impacting the fairness and efficiency of the administration of justice.

The judgment is significant as it underscores the judiciary’s disquiet when statutory provisions, such as those under the Superior Courts Act, are not implemented with the intended urgency. The case also provides clarity on the judicial approach to handling multiple appeals presented simultaneously, emphasizing that each appeal must ultimately be adjudicated on its own merits. This cautionary stance has broader implications for similar cases in terms of procedural conduct and the timely enforcement of court orders.

In addition, the case compares and contrasts differing judicial decisions over the same order, thus cementing its position as a key reportable matter that offers insights into the challenges faced by litigants when well-established legal processes are not adhered to in letter and spirit.

Cases Cited

Jai Hind EMCC CC tla Emmarentia Convenience Centre v Engen Petroleum Ltd South Africa 2023 (2) SA 252 (GJ)

Legislation Cited

Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

The judgment does not explicitly name additional rules of court apart from those implied under the Superior Courts Act and procedural guidelines regarding cost taxation (referred to as Scale C).

HEADNOTE

Summary

The judgment addresses the appeals against portions of a previous order issued by Kumalo J on 23 March 2023, concerning the Road Accident Fund’s delayed payments to various respondents arising from motor vehicle collision claims. The central focus is on the dissatisfaction with the RAF’s delays, the alleged inflation and possible fraudulent conduct in the submission of bills of costs by the Attorneys, and the inappropriate scheduling of appeals. The full court scrutinized both the main appeal in respect of the March 2023 order and the s18(4) appeal brought by the RAF.

In a detailed analysis, the court upheld the appeal against the contested paragraph of the March 2023 order, setting aside the order that deemed any administrative decision by the RAF regarding non-payment as irrational or unlawful if presented as an administrative decision. Conversely, the s18(4) appeal was summarily dismissed with costs, as the court emphasized that the statutory provision for expedited resolution was compromised by unnecessary delays. The court’s decision critically examines the timing and manner in which the appeals were consolidated and scheduled, revealing a deviation from the legislative intent of section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act.

The judgment is a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory procedural requirements and ensuring that appeals, especially those that are meant to be handled on an urgent basis, are not subject to undue delay. It reinforces the judicial responsibility to maintain both the spirit and the letter of the law in the execution of court orders, particularly where multiple parties' rights and timely payment of awarded amounts are involved.

Key Issues

The judgment deliberated on several key legal issues. First, it examined whether the inclusion of the RAF’s administrative decision as irrational on appeal was justified. Second, the case explored whether the statutory framework under the Superior Courts Act, in particular section 18(4), was being misapplied by delaying what should have been an expedited hearing. Third, the court considered the impact of consolidated scheduling on the prompt administration of justice and whether the procedural arrangement diluted the urgency required by the law.

THE FACTS

The case arises out of multiple motor vehicle collision claims where the RAF was ordered by prior court orders to make payments to various respondents within 180 days. However, the RAF delayed these payments, resulting in respondents waiting from several months to over three years. The RAF admitted to the delays but raised a “reasonable suspicion” that the Attorneys had inflated or fraudulently prepared their bills of cost. Allegations included fictitious charges and retention of unmerited fees from the collected funds, as testified by a whistle-blower. These contested practices provided the backdrop for the RAF’s appeals against parts of the March 2023 order.

The issues became more complicated when the RAF filed both a general appeal and a s18(4) appeal, with the latter intended to secure an expedited hearing. The appeals process was marred by delays, including late filings and protracted hearing schedules, which led to criticism from the bench regarding the improper handling of appeals meant to be processed “as a matter of extreme urgency.”

Over the course of the proceedings, the parties also reached an agreement to have the two appeals heard simultaneously, even though the statutory framework implies separate and urgent treatment for the s18(4) appeal. The prolonged delay and misalignment of the intended procedural urgency stand at the heart of the dispute addressed in the judgment.

THE ISSUES

The legal questions the court had to decide were multifaceted. The court needed to determine whether the RAF’s challenge to the underlying orders was justified, particularly the finding that its administrative decision regarding non-payment was irrational and capricious. It also had to consider whether the RAF’s delay in filing various appeal documents and the subsequent scheduling deviations compromised the application of section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act.

Another critical issue was assessing the impact of the alleged inflated and possibly fraudulent bills of cost submitted by the Attorneys on the overall fairness and execution of the payment orders. The court was required to balance the RAF’s administrative decisions with the statutory mandate to pay orders within a fixed period, thereby ensuring that justice was not indirectly undermined by procedural delays and dubious conduct on the part of legal representatives.

Finally, the court examined whether consolidating the two appeals into a single hearing was consistent with the legislative requirement for urgency when dealing with interlocutory decisions as specified in section 18(4).

ANALYSIS

In its reasoning, the court methodically analyzed the RAF’s arguments alongside the statutory requirements of the Superior Courts Act. The court expressed strong disquiet regarding the apparent procedural missteps, particularly noting that the s18(4) appeal was not treated with the expediency that the statute mandates. The lengthy delays—from the granting of the s18(3) order in August 2023 to the eventual hearing of the s18(4) appeal—demonstrated a clear deviation from the purpose of section 18(4).

The court also scrutinized the RAF’s contention regarding inflated and fraudulent bills of cost, acknowledging that the allegations raised serious concerns about the Attorneys’ conduct. However, while the court recognized these concerns, its primary focus was on the procedural aspects rather than re-litigating the veracity of the cost allegations. The analysis underscored that the RAF had admitted the underlying factual delays while simultaneously arguing for a more exigent review under the statutory framework.

Ultimately, the court differentiated between the main appeal and the s18(4) appeal. It set aside the contested portion of the March 2023 order regarding the RAF’s administrative decision on payment denial, while dismissing the s18(4) appeal with costs. This dual treatment highlighted the importance of ensuring that the mechanisms intended for expedited relief are not abused or unduly delayed, reaffirming the necessity for adherence to procedural urgency in such matters.

REMEDY

The court’s remedy provided a bifurcated outcome. For the main appeal concerning the March 2023 order, the court dismissed the appeal against paragraphs 3 and 4 but upheld the appeal against paragraph 5, thereby setting aside that portion of the order. The RAF was ordered to bear the respondents’ costs of appeal, including costs for both Senior Counsel and junior counsel, to be taxed in accordance with Scale C. In contrast, the s18(4) appeal was dismissed with costs, again including additional costs consequent upon employing both a Senior Counsel and a junior counsel.

These remedies reflect the court’s emphasis on both rectifying the procedural missteps and reinforcing the statutory mandate for urgency in handling certain appeals. By addressing the issues with a clear separation between the different appeal types, the court ensured that its decisions would guide future practice in ensuring expedited hearings when required under statutory provisions.

The outcome provides a directive for future cases by stressing that appeals engendering urgent relief must be processed in a manner reflecting the urgency intended by statute. This aim supports the overarching principle of ensuring that judicial orders are enforced promptly and that any departure from this standard is met with judicial disapproval, especially where delays may cause irreparable harm to the parties involved.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment establishes several key legal principles. First, it reaffirms that statutory provisions, such as those under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act, must be strictly adhered to, with particular emphasis on the need for expedited hearings in matters involving interlocutory orders. Second, the decision highlights that administrative decisions by bodies such as the RAF cannot be shielded from judicial review simply by categorizing them in a manner that defers the application of statutory timelines.

Additionally, the judgment underscores that where allegations of inflated or fraudulent billing practices exist, these concerns must be addressed separately from procedural considerations, ensuring that procedural delays do not prevent necessary scrutiny of potential misconduct. The court’s approach in dissecting the consolidated hearing of the two appeals further reinforces the importance of treating each appeal on its respective merits while aligning the process with statutory mandates. This serves as a clarion call to both the judiciary and litigants to maintain the balance between administrative discretion and the imperative of procedural justice.