Road Accident Fund (RAF) CEO Collins Letsoalo continues with his legal bid to have his suspension lifted as his term comes to an end on Wednesday.
Pretoria high court judge Graham Moshoana dismissed Letsoalo’s application submitted in June to have his suspension in May overturned. Letsoalo filed a scathing leave to appeal, accusing the judge of being “biased”, and this was heard in the high court last Thursday.
RAF lawyer Ernst van Graan, opposing the application, said: “The application for leave for appeal is legally unsustainable and should be dismissed with costs of scale B of costs.” He argued against the statement that the court was biased because it had quizzed Letsoalo’s case during the urgent application arguments.
“The allegations of bias and interference against the judge are not substantiated. The court was entitled to interrogate counsel on the issues in the application. The fact that the judge was asking material questions on the issues he had to decide in the application cannot on its own suggest biasness by the judge.”
Moshoana, who has years of experience in labour legal cases, had asked Letsoalo’s counsel, Hlalele Molotsi, whether the fund’s disciplinary policy was applicable to the CEO. The urgent application was pinned on the policy, the legal requirements of which Molotsi argued the RAF board had not followed when it suspended Letsoalo.
Moshoana described Letsoalo’s reliance on the policy as “bizarre” as Letsoalo had signed the policy and relied on it in disciplining staff. Molotsi, in the appeal, contended that the policy applied to his client.
Letsoalo also accused Moshoana of raising issues that were not pleaded by the RAF in the legal battle, but Van Graan dismissed the argument as “incorrect”.
“The issues which the learned judge raised in the judgment were raised by the [RAF] in the papers and the judge did not determine an issue which was not pleaded.
“The senior counsel for the respondents made legal concession during the hearing that, in fact, the disciplinary policy is not applicable to the applicant,” said Van Graan.
The applicant argued the judge did consider a letter by RAF board member Lekau Nyama sent to transport minister Barbara Creecy, in which he argued the board had lied to parliament about the suspension. In the letter, Nyama said the board decided to place Letsoalo on compassionate leave to attend to personal matters.
Moshoana had asked Molotsi whether Nyama’s letter should be considered as his own opinion rather than the board’s resolution.
“It is untruthful and misleading to say the judge ignored the letter of the audit committee, dated June 9 2025. The judge dealt extensively with the letter, and he mentioned the board of the fund, correctly so, communicates through the resolution,” said Van Graan.
“The mere letter of the audit committee cannot suggest the board’s position on an issue in the absence of the resolution of the board.”
The fund wants the appeal to be dismissed with legal costs.
Molotsi argued the Supreme Court of Appeal would rule in favour of his client and lift his suspension. He said the board had no legal grounds to suspend him.
“The appeal would further deal with the issue regarding the biasness of the court when the court with respect, entered the terrain of litigation between the parties and crossed the impartiality line,” Letsoalo’s court papers read.
“It is trite that an allegation [that] the court is biased raises a constitutional issue. Biasness on the part of the court resulted in the applicant’s fair trial rights being violated.”
The court reserved judgment.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.