You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

Government defends removing road accident fund lawyers

Wants state attorneys to take over.
It's unclear how many state attorneys will be hired, or when. Image: Shutterstock

The Department of Transport (DoT) has defended its move to ignore a court order to retain the panel of attorneys set up in 2014 to act on behalf of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in claims made by victims of motor vehicle accidents.

The department says it had launched an appeal against Judge Wendy Hughes’s June 1 order to retain the 103 lawyers for six more months and the appeal “has the legal effect of suspending the operation of the order”.

The order also did not come into effect as it was “subsequently set aside by a full bench of the court, following an appeal by the RAF,” according to the DoT.

All of this came to light when the department provided a written response last week to questions asked in parliament by DA MP Chris Hunsinger.

The disbanding of the panel, announced late last year, has led to legal pitch battles between the attorneys on the one side, and the RAF and the department on the other.

The department wants to put in a new regime to adjudicate compensation in vehicle accidents.

Money owed

Its goal is to reduce the steep and ever-rising cost of adjudicating these road accident cases by doing away with outside attorneys and bringing in people from the state attorney’s office to represent the RAF.

In addition to wanting the RAF to retain their services, the panel attorneys are also demanding payment for services they have rendered.

They are not alone in complaining about the RAF’s performance. The Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association (Pipla) has accused the fund of mismanagement, incompetence and non-payment.

“As much as the RAF would like to deflect blame, the reality is that claims are piling up and are just not being paid,” says Pipla chair advocate Justin Erasmus.

“This is impacting the most vulnerable in our society – road accident victims.”

Erasmus points out that with so many non-payment complaints being aired, it’s difficult to understand who is actually being paid from the R2 billion the RAF receives monthly.

“There is just no transparency.”


Rolling on and on

The government in turn argues that in using the panel of attorneys, there is an inducement for them to increase costs.

It notes in its response to Hunsinger: “It is important to mention that a study conducted by Professor Hennie Klopper on the RAF matters set down on the court roll in the Gauteng Division of the High Court … revealed that 99.56 % of the matters are settled at the doorstep of court and less than 1% (0.45%) proceed to trial.”

This means the RAF’s legal representatives were choosing to take the expensive step of putting these cases on the court rolls when it was clear that the vast majority were not going to trial.

Klopper’s research, first published in De Rebus, points out that while the number of cases the RAF was dealing with halved from 185 773 in 2005 to 92 101 in 2018, the legal cost of dealing with them surged over nine-fold in the same period – from R941 million to R8.8 billion.

The judge president in the Mpumalanga High Court, Frans Legodi, in the matter of Mncube v RAF, also noticed the large number of accident claims on the court roll.

“More than 90% of matters on our trial roll are the Road Accident Fund which is funded through [the] public purse. One would have thought the parties and or legal practitioners in dealing with these matters, will be more expedient and professional. However, the contrary appears to be the case. This is despite continuous financial woes the fund finds itself in.”

All of this means the RAF is government’s largest contingent liability – larger than Eskom; its accumulated deficit is projected to grow to R593 billion by 2022/23.

The department and the RAF have clearly defined what they see as the problem, but have been slow to implement solutions.

For instance, when Hunsinger asked for a timeframe on when the state attorney would second more attorneys, in addition to the 62 it already has working for the RAF, he did not get a clear answer.

He was told that the number of new appointments would be made depending on “the ability of the current attorneys to deal efficiently with the current number of litigated matters”.

There are plans to hire more, but when and how many is uncertain.

“The number of attorneys to be recruited in the 2020/21 financial year is unknown at this stage.”




Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


Corruption and death trap taxis have killed RAF completely.

Sounds like this is a subject matter that should have been the focus of attention by watchdogs long, long ago.

It makes me wonder about how effective the opposition political psrties are in holding the government accountable.

Opposition parties?????

They are just politicians that are on the gravy train and have to say the opposite to look like opposition.

The brital answer is “Not effective at all!”

And the simple reason is that the government of the day (in any country anywhere in the world) only pays REAL attention to an opposition party that is speedily moving in to eclipse it.

Otherwise, why bother worrying about posers who are all about noise and no bite.

This is the state of the DA (and ALL the opposition parties in Parliament).

EXCEPT the EFF – which is dangerous in every sense of the word. And rightly feared by the ANC leadership.

But the DA? Even under new leader Steenhuizen?

Just Barking chihuahuas!

#Justbarkingchihuahuas, It is up to an intelligent electorate to strengthen the opposition.

There never is “Transparency” in a system set up for lawyers to loot and victims to suffer !!

Best scrap this system in totality and insist that each vehicle is comprehensively insured !!!

Government has never listened to a court order, terrorists do not do that.

I suppose this came from state attorneys, howling that they also wanted a slice of this cesspool scheme.

Imagine the bribes paid to state attorneys to inflate payouts for victims – – –

Both parties are here to blame. The RAF for their useless administration and the attorneys for their exorbitant fees they have charged over the years…

True. There are scary stories out there. Claims for 1 million for a broken bone and parties settling.

The system has been corrupted by the legal profession for 40+ years, and is nothing more than a cash cow.
Broboff, et al)
With the taps being cut off, medical ‘malpractice’ and ‘racism’ are the new games in town.
#rd party insurance makes more sense.

This thing has been broken for decades. A friend was stuck in courts from his accident in 2000. All the money is spent for lawyers and accident victims receive very little at huge costs to themselves.

It would be better to make it cheap and fast and pay something, or actually just scrap the whole thing really, because noone besides lawyers receives anything worth mentioning.

Why do we have this system? How many countries do this? I get that we need something for people without insurance.

The entire system needs to change, with standard table of benefits much like private disability insurance works. Lose a finger – R1,000. Lose a hand – R50,000. Fixed death benefits. And your claim from RAF is reduced by the amount of your private insurance benefits. Scream, complain, whatever.

Do this and within a decade we will have a solvent RAF again and it will process claims in under 30 days. A few hundred ambulance chasers will need to find real legal work.

These ambulance chasers … however much we despise them; they are on the scene before our cops and lets not talk about our government ambulance service.

As an additional to Car-insurance, no-one can drive an uninsured car, cars must be insured with comprehensive, paid-up insurance, if unable to pay, unable to drive.

The RAF should have been closed down long ago.

Why do we pay for involuntary insurance?

Why not outsource it to the private sector?

Why not make it mandatory for motorists to have insurance?

We have many competent insurance companies.

We must again be the only country in the world with RAF and TV licenses.

back in the 1970’s in a training course on human resource matters I was told that there is a guideline price list for loss of use of limbs, fingers etc. This wwas in the UK and was for industrial claims. It would be a start to have something like that and make the claim a standard menu, lawyers fee fixed at say r1500 per case regardless.There is an old joke that a lawyer can stretch a case for days, a really good lawyer can stretch it for years. If we make it fixed price per case they will move quicker

The RAF should be investigated by the Zondo commission. If you think politicians can loot the state coffers, wait until you meet their lawyers.

End of comments.





Follow us: