Erasmus v Road Accident Fund (042035/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 246 (12 March 2025)

Erasmus v Road Accident Fund (042035/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 246 (12 March 2025)

The court held that the refusal by the Road Accident Fund to preauthorise medical procedures did not constitute an exercise of public or statutory power and was not reviewable under PAJA or legality review. The applicant did not plead a PAJA review, and the impugned decisions were not administrative actions. The RAF complied with the court order by furnishing the undertaking as required under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The refusal to preauthorise was not a breach of section 17(4) nor an exercise of public power, but at most a contractual dispute. The appropriate remedy for breach of contract is a claim for specific performance or damages, not judicial review. The...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 246
Parties
Applicant: Sonja Erasmus; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Case Number
042035/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Judicial Review, Contempt of Court, Contractual Undertaking
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Judicial Review Contempt of Court Contractual Undertaking

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonja Erasmus

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal by the Road Accident Fund to preauthorise medical procedures constitutes an exercise of public or statutory power reviewable under PAJA or legality review.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal amounts to a breach of section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act or a breach of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is an available remedy for the applicant under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the refusal by the Road Accident Fund to preauthorise medical procedures did not constitute an exercise of public or statutory power and was not reviewable under PAJA or legality review. The applicant did not plead a PAJA review, and the impugned decisions were not administrative actions. The RAF complied with the court order by furnishing the undertaking as required under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The refusal to preauthorise was not a breach of section 17(4) nor an exercise of public power, but at most a contractual dispute. The appropriate remedy for breach of contract is a claim for specific performance or damages, not judicial review. The...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.