RAF faces pressure from legal experts to settle payment disputes outside of court

Last week, the RAF's urgent request to extend the 180-day payment moratorium was denied, with the fund claiming financial collapse if the reprieve was not granted. 

However, legal experts argue that the RAF simply needs to get its affairs in order. The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) welcomed the Gauteng High Court's ruling, which struck the RAF's application from the roll with punitive costs.

The court found that the RAF's request for a further 180-day stay of executions lacked urgency, as the fund sought to limit the rights of its judgment creditors by extending the suspension of writs and warrants for those awaiting payment.

 The RAF asked the court to extend a previous temporary pause on executions which stops sheriffs from enforcing court orders against the RAF. Because of this latest decision, there is no new blanket pause in place. The court’s decision reaffirms that extraordinary, time-limited relief is not a licence for indefinite evasion of court-ordered obligations, the LSSA said.

In recent years, the RAF has asked courts for short, time-limited moratoria. These were granted as exceptional measures to give the RAF breathing room to organise its affairs. They were not meant to become permanent or to be renewed repeatedly, the law body said.

It added that the court’s stance signals that systemic issues at the RAF should be addressed through proper planning, and cooperation with stakeholders, not through serial urgent applications.

The law body said temporary relief cannot become perpetual delay.

“The RAF’s mandate is not abstract, it is a promise embedded in statute and enforced by our courts - to make good, swiftly and fairly, the losses suffered by road-accident victims. Where the Fund fails to honour that promise, the rule of law must intervene,” President of the LSSA, Nkosana Mvundlela said.

It is, however, understood that the application will again serve before court - probably before three judges but on a non-urgent basis.

Nicolette de Witt of the Pretoria Attorney’s Association (PAA) - one of the many respondents - pointed out that the court did not turn the application down on the merits, it just found that it is not urgent. 

While the fund says it fears financial implosion as it is open to attorneys and others to execute the writs they had obtained against the fund in a bid to receive payment, De Witt said this is not likely to happen, as things changed since the fund first obtained its order during the Covid-19 time for a moratorium on the 180 days payment.

She said the legal fraternity wants a solution to the problems facing both the fund and the claimants, as it will be in everyone’s interest. 

“This dispute (non-payment of claims) can be resolved outside the courts. The fund must just play open cards,” she said.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus