Danny Joseph Sibiya and Others v Road Accident Fund

Mr Danny Joseph Sibiya appointed Du Toit-Smuts Attorneys to pursue a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident. An attorney-and-client fee agreement was concluded. After the RAF conceded merits and tendered party-and-party costs, the bill of costs was set down for taxation. The taxing master queried whether a contingency fee agreement existed and, despite an affidavit stating none existed and no misconduct being alleged, referred the matter to the Judge President under Uniform Rule 70(5A)(d)(ii). Acting in chambers and without hearing the parties, the High Court set aside the fee agreement as illegal, stayed taxation, directed that the attorneys were not entitled to any fees, and referred the attorney to the Legal Practice Council. The appellants challenged these orders on procedural and substantive grounds.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the referral by the taxing master in terms of Rule 70(5A)(d)(ii). No order as to costs was made.

The case affirms strict limits on the use of Rule 70(5A)(d)(ii), clarifies that courts may not mero motu determine the legality of fee agreements through taxation referrals, and reinforces foundational procedural fairness principles, including audi alteram partem, open justice, and judicial restraint. It underscores that procedural irregularities constitute an absolute bar to jurisdiction.