Majope and Others v The Road Accident Fund

The first and second appellants, Ms Tina Majope and Mr Abednego Machabe, were injured in separate motor vehicle accidents in Mpumalanga and mandated Ms Fortunate Nwa‑Khosa Ngomana, an attorney, to institute claims against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Written attorney-and-own-client fee agreements were concluded. The RAF conceded liability in both matters but failed to appear at the quantum hearings. Default judgments were sought. Although the draft orders merely recorded that there was no contingency fee agreement, the Mpumalanga High Court, mero motu, conducted an enquiry into the fee arrangements, concluded that the agreements were invalid contingency fee agreements, and made far‑reaching orders depriving the attorney and counsel of fees, directing payment of damages to nominated attorneys, and referring the legal representatives to the Legal Practice Council. These additional orders were not sought by any party. The plaintiffs and their legal representatives appealed.

The appeals were upheld. Leave to intervene was granted to the attorney and counsel. The High Court’s orders were set aside and replaced with conventional default judgment orders awarding damages for loss of earnings and party‑and‑party costs to the plaintiffs, payable into the trust account of their attorneys, with no punitive or regulatory orders against the legal representatives.

The case reaffirms the limits of judicial power in RAF default judgments and underscores that courts may not make unsolicited or collateral orders, particularly against non‑parties. It clarifies that ordinary attorney‑and‑client fee agreements are private contracts unrelated to the merits of RAF litigation and should not be incorporated into court orders or subjected to judicial scrutiny absent a true contingency fee agreement. The decision protects procedural fairness and contractual autonomy in legal practice.