Despite being notified twice that default judgment was looming against it in a case where the Road Accident simply did not defend the matter earlier, the RAF suddenly turned to court to rescind the judgment that it is liable to pay compensation to a road accident victim.
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, had stern words for the conduct of the fund, with Judge Annali Basson commenting: “The thinking of the RAF on finality of its claims through judicial pronouncements is very worrisome. It simply wants to have the last word, even after a court order.”
The fund, among others, blamed a bona fide oversight on the part of its employees and being short staffed for them “not knowing” that the matter was in court and that judgment was obtained in their absence.
But the judge said none of the explanations by the fund were reasonable.
“While the oversight regarding the summons might be excusable, the subsequent notification of two default judgment hearings to the RAF, including multiple staff members and the State Attorney, undermines any claim that it was unaware of the default judgment proceedings,” she said.
The RAF has in fact launched many applications to rescind default judgments (where they do not defend a matter) and where they suddenly become aware of the court orders against it.
In a recent similar matter, the court remarked: "The woes of the RAF, whether it be financial or administrative, are well known within the legal fraternity, and probably beyond… They have blighted the road accident litigation landscape like the bubonic plague of old and, no doubt left a trail of destruction in the wake."
In the case now before the court for rescission, the court gave judgment against the fund in May last year. They asked the court for permission to go ahead with the rescission application, although the time had lapsed in which it was supposed to make the application.
Judge Basson earlier refused the fund condonation and she now provided her reasons for this.
She said despite overwhelming evidence that there was proper service on the RAF, not only of the summons and various other processes, but more importantly of the date of the hearing of the application for default judgment on no less than two occasions, the RAF failed to appear and failed to file a notice of intention to defend.
The RAF now seeks to rescind the default order and judgment, but launched its application to rescission, which is six months late.
A senior RAF official said that the fund had received summons regarding the claim in September 2021, but did not attend to it. She could not say why, but suggested it could be due to either mis-filing, or a lack of resources and/or capacity with the fund.
“The application for default judgment was served on the fund in 2022 (also by email), but also somehow missed their attention. Apart from claiming that the RAF had a lack of resources, she could offer no explanation for this.”
It was only after the court gave judgment against the RAF in that matter, that the fund suddenly investigated the merits of the case and launched the rescission application.
The RAF submits that it had acted expeditiously given "the limitations on time afforded by internal policies and mandatory procedures”.
But Judge Basson said the RAF could not claim to be afforded any special indulgence simply because it had to adhere to internal policies and procedures. “This explanation only reinforces the perception that the RAF is plagued by significant institutional failures, which have become closely associated with RAF litigation in this court,” she added.
The RAF, who fired its panel of attorneys in 2020 as part of its turn-around strategy, acknowledges that in the early stages of the transition, it was often unrepresented in court.
It also blamed the March national state of disaster as it functioned on a skeleton staff.
But Judge Basson said, since the RAF terminated the contracts of the panel in 2020, it had three years to get its house in order when the respondent served its claim on the RAF. She also pointed out that Covid had long gone.
“It is simply not reasonable to still blame the RAF's inaction on Covid,” she said.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za