Road Accident Fund and Others v Mabunda and Others (15876/2020; 17518/2020; 18239/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 386; [2021] 1 All SA 255 (GP) (18 August 2020)

Road Accident Fund and Others v Mabunda and Others (15876/2020; 17518/2020; 18239/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 386; [2021] 1 All SA 255 (GP) (18 August 2020)

The appeal court held that the requirements for exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act were not satisfied. The evidence of chaos and harm in the civil trial rolls was anecdotal and insufficient to meet the threshold of exceptionality. The orders granted by the court a quo were found to be indeterminate, open-ended, and irredeemably vague, making them unenforceable and likely to cause irreparable harm to the RAF if operationalised. The court further found that compelling the RAF to contract with panel attorneys in a toxic environment would undermine the attorney-client relationship and the RAF's operational model. The appeal was...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 386
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Appellant: Chairperson of the Board of the Road Accident Fund; Appellant: Acting Chief Executive Officer of the RAF; Respondent: Mabunda Inc and 42 Others; Respondent: FourieFismer Inc and Two Others; Respondent: Diale Mogashoa Inc.; Appellant: Law Society of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Transport
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Case Number
15876/2020; 17518/2020; 18239/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Execution Order Under Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The execution order under section 18(3) is set aside. Application for execution dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Kollapen, I Opperman, C Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Section 18 Execution Pending Appeal, Service Level Agreements, Public Procurement Irregularity, Principle of Legality, Attorney Client Relationship, Constitutional Review
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Section 18 Execution Pending Appeal Service Level Agreements Public Procurement Irregularity Principle of Legality Attorney Client Relationship +1 more

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Chairperson of the Board of the Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Acting Chief Executive Officer of the RAF

Appellant

Mabunda Inc and 42 Others

Respondent

FourieFismer Inc and Two Others

Respondent

Diale Mogashoa Inc.

Respondent

Law Society of South Africa

Appellant

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Execution Order Under Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the order pending appeal under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act was justified.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm were established as required by section 18(3).
  3. 3 Whether the orders granted by the court a quo were indeterminate, vague, or unenforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court held that the requirements for exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act were not satisfied. The evidence of chaos and harm in the civil trial rolls was anecdotal and insufficient to meet the threshold of exceptionality. The orders granted by the court a quo were found to be indeterminate, open-ended, and irredeemably vague, making them unenforceable and likely to cause irreparable harm to the RAF if operationalised. The court further found that compelling the RAF to contract with panel attorneys in a toxic environment would undermine the attorney-client relationship and the RAF's operational model. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The execution order under section 18(3) is set aside. Application for execution dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order granted by the court a quo in terms of section 18(3), and the additional relief in paragraph (e) of the order, is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.'