- The Road Accident Fund failed to stop enforcement of 181 court orders obtained by a private hospital for treating crash victims, with judges finding no proof of fraud or unlawful billing.
- The court ruled the Fund cannot freeze writs of execution without appealing or rescinding the underlying judgments first, calling the tactic an abuse of process.
- A reconsideration bid and attempt to introduce “new” evidence were both dismissed, with the RAF ordered to pay costs, including two counsel.
The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been ordered to pay a Pretoria hospital 181 existing court judgments after the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected its last-ditch attempt to block enforcement and label the claims unlawful.
Judges found no proof of fraud, no illegality in the billing system, and no legal basis to stop the sheriff from collecting what is already owed.
In a blunt judgment written by Acting Judge B Mbha, the SCA refused to reopen the Fund’s case against Sunshine Hospital, operated by Newnet Properties. The court made it clear that once a claim has been reduced to a court order, the RAF must either challenge that order properly or pay. It cannot stall payment with broad allegations and investigations.
For the hospital, the ruling means it can keep pushing for payment after years of treating road crash victims without being paid. For the RAF, it is another legal defeat and another bill to cover.
Court says the Fund targeted enforcement, not the real issue
This fight didn’t start with a new claim, but 181 judgments that were already on the books. Over time, Sunshine secured court orders in magistrates’ courts, regional courts and the High Court for medical services provided to accident victims under Section 17(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. Some orders followed a trial, while others were granted by agreement, and some after the RAF failed to defend matters at all.
Not one of those orders was appealed or rescinded. Instead, when the sheriff prepared to sell assets to satisfy the debts, the RAF rushed to the High Court in Pretoria, asking for the writs of execution to be suspended. It said the hospital’s “global” or combined accounts, where the hospital bundled doctors’ and service providers’ invoices with its own, were unlawful and unethical.
The courts were unmoved. The appeal court stressed that the Fund was trying to dodge the consequences of judgments instead of actually challenging the judgments themselves.
If the RAF really believed specific claims were fraudulent or inflated, it should have attacked those cases one by one. A blanket freeze was never going to fly.
The billing system that the RAF once supported
Evidence before the courts showed that the combined billing system wasn’t a surprise innovation by the hospital. It was set up years ago as part of a cooperation agreement to cut paperwork and speed up claims.
RAF staff even worked from the hospital’s own offices to help collate files and process the paperwork. Instead of sending a stack of separate invoices for each patient, they bundled everything together. For over a decade, the RAF paid those bundled claims without a word of protest. Only much later did the RAF start arguing that this same system broke the rules.
The appeal court agreed with the High Court that Section 17(5) does not say how claims have to be packaged, just that suppliers can claim directly. There was nothing unlawful about the process, and nothing to show doctors were acting unethically by sending invoices through the hospital.
As the court put it, there was “not the slightest indication” that any of the 181 claims were irregular.
Investigations and suspicions not enough
The RAF relied heavily on ongoing investigations by forensic teams, outside auditors and the Special Investigating Unit. It also alleged over servicing and inflated billing. But none of the final reports proved any wrongdoing. Some of the reviews did not even relate to the 181 matters the court had already ruled on.
During the argument, the court noted that even RAF’s own lawyers basically admitted there was no concrete evidence linking any specific court order to fraud or dodgy billing. Speculation, the judges said, cannot undo binding court orders.
Reconsideration attempt fails
After losing leave to appeal, the RAF tried another angle, asking the court to reconsider its refusal and introducing what it called new evidence. The appeal court found the material was not new or decisive. More importantly, there was no grave injustice that would justify reopening the matter.
Both applications were thrown out. The RAF now has to pay Sunshine’s costs, including the fees for two lawyers.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
