Ubisi and Another v Road Accident Fund

Mr Matedewuja Kenneth Ubisi instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Liability was settled in 2019 on a 100% basis in his favour. Prior to the hearing on quantum, the parties concluded a settlement agreement in February 2022 in terms of which the RAF agreed to pay R2 549 830.20 for general damages and loss of earnings, furnish a section 17(4)(a) undertaking for future medical expenses, and pay costs, with past medical expenses postponed sine die. The parties requested the Gauteng Division of the High Court to make the settlement an order of court. The High Court refused, set aside the settlement agreement (save for the undertaking), dismissed aspects of the claim, and ordered Ubisi’s attorneys to pay costs de bonis propriis, making adverse findings of fraud and impropriety. Ubisi and his attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order making the agreed settlement (draft order marked “X”) an order of court. No order as to costs was made.

The case reaffirms the limits of judicial intervention in settlement agreements, particularly in Road Accident Fund matters, and underscores the principle of pacta sunt servanda. It clarifies that courts may not set aside settlements merely because they disagree with the merits or quantum, absent public policy concerns or a challenge to validity. The judgment also reinforces procedural fairness and the requirement of a hearing before adverse findings are made against legal practitioners.