The Road Accident Fund (RAF) continues to rely on regulatory notices declared unlawful by multiple courts, resulting in prolonged harm to claimants and millions in wasted public funds, the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) heard on Tuesday.
The Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund (LPIIF) told the committee it had spent R2m opposing the RAF’s appeal against a full-bench judgment that set aside a board notice and ordered a return to the 2008 claims regime.
Despite losing on nearly all grounds and the minister of transport choosing not to oppose the review, the RAF persists in litigation while vulnerable victims remain uncompensated.
The insurance fund’s intervention follows its successful constitutional challenge of a board notice and the minister of transport’s 2022 amendment to the RAF1 claim form.
A full bench of the Gauteng division of the high court declared the board notice unlawful and ordered the RAF to revert to the 2008 regulatory regime. The RAF’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is still pending, despite its failure to secure leave on most grounds and the minister’s decision not to oppose the review.
GM of the LPIIF Thomas Harban confirmed the fund had incurred about R2m in litigation costs to date, with projections exceeding R3m should the matter proceed to the constitutional court.
The RAF is actively postponing inevitable liability on its part with great legal costs from the public purse. In the interim, victims of motor vehicle accidents are made to suffer.
— Thomas Harban GM of the LPIIF
Scopa heard that the RAF continued to rely on the impugned board notices to reject claims, notwithstanding multiple adverse judgments.
“The RAF is actively postponing inevitable liability on its part with great legal costs from the public purse. In the interim, victims of motor vehicle accidents are made to suffer,” said Harban.
The committee was referred to judgments in Mautla & others v Road Accident Fund & Others and Bezuidenhout v Road Accident Fund, where courts found the RAF’s conduct to be unlawful and wasteful.
‘Clutching at straws’
In the latter, judge ST Mgudlwa remarked: “It is clutching at straws and in the process depriving deserving claimants of their lawful entitlement … shamefully wasting yet more public funds.”
The insurance fund’s affidavit, tabled before Scopa, detailed the impact of prescription and under-settlement risks arising from RAF-related claims. Between July 1996 and September 2025, it received 2,946 prescription-related claims and paid out R527.3m.
In the past five years alone, 406 such claims resulted in R125.8m in payouts. Under-settlement claims totalled 492 over the same period, with R144m paid, including R35.2m in the past five years.
These figures reflect the insurance fund’s statutory obligation to step into the shoes of the RAF when legal practitioners fail to lodge or prosecute claims timeously.
The committee was further briefed on the procedural consequences of the RAF’s regulatory instruments. A board notice introduced documentation requirements that, according to Harban, were “disconnected from the realities of SA”.
These included inquest reports, VAT invoices from funeral parlours and costly medico-legal and actuarial reports, which are often inaccessible to rural and indigent claimants.
The insurance fund argued that such requirements exceed the standard of substantial compliance established under section 24 of the RAF Act and violate the principles of administrative justice under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
Unconstitutional
In addition to regulatory overreach, the fund raised concerns about the RAF’s continued reliance on the two-year prescription period for hit-and-run claims, despite a 2021 judgment declaring it unconstitutional for minors and persons under curatorship.
The RAF did not appeal that decision, yet continues to raise the point in litigation. Harban cited a matter where a claimant with a serious head injury waited 18 years without adjudication on the merits, with the RAF persisting in its prescription defence until it was dismissed with punitive costs.
The insurance fund clarified its institutional role, stating that it does not represent the legal profession and does not cover claims arising from theft or overcharging, which fall under the Legal Practice Council and the Fidelity Fund.
Its mandate is limited to professional indemnity insurance, funded by the Fidelity Fund on behalf of attorneys holding Fidelity Fund certificates. Harban emphasised that the fund’s risk exposure is directly linked to RAF-related litigation and administrative conduct.
Scopa members expressed concern over the RAF’s litigation strategy and its implications for public expenditure and access to justice. The committee was informed that the RAF has not disclosed how much of its R160m corporate legal services budget relates to the insurance fund and Mautla litigation.
Harban noted that the RAF’s legal representatives have, in several instances, failed to appear in court or lacked proper instructions, resulting in adverse cost orders.
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.