The Road Accident Fund and Others v Mautla and Others

The Road Accident Fund (RAF), together with its former chairperson and former CEO, sought reconsideration under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act of a refusal by two judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to grant leave to appeal. The underlying dispute arose from a High Court application brought by claimants and service providers who experienced difficulties lodging claims with the RAF after it introduced revised compliance rules and a new RAF1 claim form via board notices and directives published in 2021. The respondents challenged these actions, arguing that the RAF lacked statutory authority to amend the RAF1 form and that only the Minister of Transport had such power, which could not be delegated. The full court of the Gauteng Division, sitting as a court of first instance, upheld the challenge, reviewed and set aside the RAF’s directives and notices, and declared Regulation 7(1) of the RAF Regulations unconstitutional. The RAF’s application for leave to appeal was refused by the High Court and subsequently by two SCA judges, who incorrectly applied the test for special leave to appeal. The RAF then applied for reconsideration under section 17(2)(f).

The application for reconsideration was granted. The prior order dismissing the application for leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The costs of the applications for leave to appeal and reconsideration were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

This judgment is significant for clarifying the operation of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, particularly the threshold requirement of exceptional circumstances for reconsideration of refusals of leave to appeal. It confirms that the application of an incorrect legal test for leave to appeal constitutes exceptional circumstances. The case also underscores the importance of public interest and coherence in appellate adjudication where overlapping statutory and constitutional issues arise, especially in relation to the powers of the RAF and the Minister of Transport.