Botha v Road Accident Fund

The appellant and his wife were injured in a motorcycle accident and instituted separate claims against the Road Accident Fund. Liability was conceded, leaving only quantum in issue. In the appellant’s matter, a settlement was reached in respect of general damages and past medical expenses, based on vouchers and documents presented by the appellant’s attorney, and the agreement was made an order of court. After payment, it emerged that additional medical expense documents had mistakenly been placed in the wife’s file and not disclosed, meaning the actual past medical expenses were substantially higher. The appellant sought rescission or variation of the court order under Uniform rule 42(1)(c), alleging a mistake common to the parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the application of Uniform rule 42(1)(c) in the context of settlement agreements made orders of court and reinforces the distinction between common and unilateral mistake. It affirms the reliance theory in South African contract law and underscores that parties cannot escape settlements due to their own attorney’s errors once the agreement is validly concluded and made an order of court.