SCA Shuts Down RAF’s Last-Minute Challenge to R133 Million Psychiatric Injury Payout

After nearly two decades of legal back-and-forth, the court tells the RAF: enough.

For South Africans, the Road Accident Fund (RAF) is a name that inspires frustration, memes, and endless headlines about unpaid claims and chaotic finances. But this time, the embattled institution has been dealt a major legal blow , one that says a lot about accountability, legal certainty, and the trauma families face long after a tragic crash.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has rejected the RAF’s attempt to overturn a R133 million settlement awarded to a widow who suffered a severe psychiatric injury after her husband died in a 2006 road accident.

And the court didn’t mince its words.

A Case Nearly 20 Years in the Making

The story begins in 2006, when the woman’s husband died in a collision.

Three years later, in 2009, she issued summons marking the start of a painfully long legal journey filled with multiple lawyers, expert reports, and procedural delays.

Her claim included:

• Loss of earnings and earning capacity

• Loss of support

• General damages

• Medical expenses

To understand her psychological trauma, both sides appointed psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Their joint minutes all agreed: she had suffered a serious psychiatric injury arising directly from her husband’s death in the accident.

In 2022, the RAF even admitted full liability and settled claims for general damages and medical expenses based on this very psychiatric diagnosis.

And then… everything changed.

RAF Brings in a New Expert and a New Story

Late in 2022, the RAF appointed a new psychiatrist based in the United States.

Her opinion contradicted everything the earlier experts, including the RAF’s own, had agreed on for years.

Armed with this new report, the RAF suddenly attempted to rewrite its plea, denying:

• that the respondent had a psychiatric injury,

• that the accident caused her mental health condition, and

• that she lacked earning capacity.

Essentially, they argued the massive settlement was based on a “common incorrect assumption”.

The problem? That assumption wasn’t incorrect at all.

Every expert report at the time of settlement supported her psychiatric injury.

SCA: “This Is Not How Justice Works”

Acting SCA Judge Daniel Dlodlo delivered a firm and clear judgment.

The RAF, he said, had shown no risk of grave injustice, nor any harm to the administration of justice that would justify reopening a long-finalised settlement.

The key issues the court highlighted included:

• Inexcusable delay

• A lack of a full, honest explanation

• Procedural prejudice to the widow

• Weak prospects of success

And importantly: a brand-new expert report, years after settlement, does not undo prior expert consensus.

In his ruling, Dlodlo wrote that relying on a new psychiatrist’s view “does not constitute a jurisdictional basis for reconsideration”.

The RAF’s application was dismissed, with costs.

Why This Ruling Matters

1. A Warning to the RAF

The RAF’s reputation is already bruised by financial troubles, high-level resignations, and widespread backlogs.
This judgment reinforces that it cannot keep shifting positions mid-litigation simply because a new expert disagrees.

2. A Victory for Legal Certainty

Families involved in long, painful road accident cases often wait years for closure. The SCA affirmed that settlements reached through proper expert consensus cannot be casually undone.

3. Public Reaction: “RAF is its own plot twist”

On social media, South Africans responded with a familiar mix of outrage and dark humour.

Many accused the RAF of wasting public money on appeals instead of paying victims. One viral comment read:
“Only the RAF could fight itself in court, lose, and still owe costs.”

For a fund already battling credibility issues, this ruling adds more pressure to fix its internal processes.

A Human Story at the Centre of It All

Beyond the legal wrangling lies a grieving woman who spent nearly two decades seeking justice and dignity after her husband’s death.

Her psychiatric injury, once acknowledged by every expert, became the subject of a last-minute challenge. The SCA’s ruling gives her closure, and prevents the erosion of an already fragile justice journey.

The SCA’s message is clear:
You cannot rewrite history because it’s convenient.

The RAF will have to pay the R133 million settlement and absorb yet another costly legal defeat that could have been avoided.

For now, the widow finally gets what she has waited almost 20 years for: certainty.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com