Despite being notified twice that default judgment was looming against it in a case where the Road Accident Fund (RAF) 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.

A Pretoria News report says 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 and where it suddenly becomes aware of the court orders against it.

The Pretoria News report says in the present case, the court had given judgment against the fund in May last year. The RAF 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.

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 sought to rescind the default order and judgment, but launched its application for rescission six months late.

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 submitted it had acted expeditiously given ‘the limitations on time afforded by internal policies and mandatory procedures’.

But Basson said the RAF could not claim to be afforded any special indulgence simply because it had to adhere to internal policies and procedures.

Full Pretoria News report in The Star

Judgment