Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunshine Hospital and Another

Sunshine Hospital, a private hospital admitting motor vehicle accident victims, obtained 181 valid court orders against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for payment of medical services rendered in terms of s 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. These orders arose from magistrates’, regional and High Court proceedings and were never appealed or rescinded. The RAF had for many years paid so-called ‘combined’ or ‘global’ claims submitted by Sunshine, which included hospital charges together with doctors’ and other service providers’ fees, a practice initiated by the RAF itself and formalised in a 2007 cooperation agreement. After terminating the agreement in 2018 and ceasing payments in 2020, the RAF alleged that such combined claims were unlawful and contravened the RAF Act and the Health Professions Act. When Sunshine sought to execute on the 181 judgments, the RAF urgently applied in the High Court under rule 45A to stay the writs of execution pending a proposed declaratory application that it was not liable for such claims. The High Court dismissed the application with punitive costs. Subsequent applications for leave to appeal were refused by the High Court and the SCA. The RAF then sought reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act and applied to adduce new evidence.

The application to adduce new evidence was dismissed. The application for reconsideration of the refusal of leave to appeal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act was dismissed. The RAF was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs in both applications, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the finality and enforceability of court orders against the RAF and limits attempts to use rule 45A stays and reconsideration procedures to delay execution. It clarifies that combined or global medical claims, especially where long accepted by the RAF, are not per se unlawful under s 17(5) of the RAF Act. The judgment also underscores the doctrine of mootness in appellate proceedings and the narrow scope of reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.