Sefatsa v Road Accident Fund (43866/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 666 (24 October 2022)

Sefatsa v Road Accident Fund (43866/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 666 (24 October 2022)

Loading PDF...

This document is 897.4 KB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:

Cited documents 2

Act
1
Finance and Money · Infrastructure and Transportation
Judgment
1
Reported
Appeal tribunal may assess injury seriousness but cannot finally determine causation; causation is for the courts.
Road Accident Fund Act and Regulations – assessment of serious injury under s 17(1A) and Regulation 3; scope of Road Accident Appeal Tribunal’s powers – limited to seriousness assessment (including directing further assessments and substituting assessments) and not to finally determining causation; principle of legality – implied powers must be necessary and reasonable consequence of express powers; causation remains for the courts; Fund retains prerogative to concede or contest causation.

Documents citing this one 2

Judgment
2
Reported
Referral advocate accepted briefs and fees directly, lacked oversight, obstructed proceedings and was struck from the roll to protect the public.
* Legal profession – referral rule – s 34 Legal Practice Act – advocate accepting instructions and fees directly from public contrary to referral practice. * Professional responsibility – oversight of staff – advocate cannot evade liability by blaming administrators. * Fitness to practise – dishonesty, non-compliance with court orders, obstructive litigation conduct and failure to execute mandates. * Sanction – striking from roll and appointment of curator bonis; LPC referral decision not reviewable.
Court granted interim stay of execution protecting public fund from alleged fraudulent attorney, directed LPC report and awarded costs.
Public law/administrative law – custodianship of public funds – interim interdicts and stays of execution under Rule 45A and section 173 – forgery/impersonation allegations against legal practitioner – jurisdiction and joinder – Rule 35(12) evidence issues – court’s inherent power to regulate officers and process.
To the top