- Interest on RAF judgment debts applies automatically, even when not written into the order.
- RAF’s reliance on silent judgments rejected as legally incorrect.
- Court confirms interest starts after 14 days and dismisses both appeals with costs.
The Road Accident Fund (RAF) cannot sidestep its obligation to pay interest on delayed compensation simply by pointing to silence in court orders.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has made it clear that interest attaches to every judgment debt by operation of law and does not need to be expressly granted by a court.
The RAF appealed against decisions in matters involving multiple respondents, including the Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria East, several law firms, and claimants Shireen Lynn Stoffels and Lizelle Herold, the latter acting on behalf of a minor.
Stoffels was awarded more than R3.7 million, while Herold secured over R4.4 million. In both cases, the RAF delayed payment by several months. When interest was demanded for the late payments, the RAF refused to pay, arguing that the court orders did not expressly provide for it.
In a related Gauteng matter, the RAF sought to block writs of execution that included interest not mentioned in the court orders, and attempted to impose a requirement that creditors submit sworn calculations before being allowed to enforce payment.
The issue before the court
The central question was whether interest on a judgment debt be specifically ordered by a court, or if it arises automatically once judgment is granted.
Judge KE Matojane, in the High Court in Pretoria, rejected the RAF’s position in clear terms. He stated that “every judgment debt bears interest … unless the order provides otherwise,” confirming that interest flows automatically from the judgment itself.
The court emphasised that once damages are quantified, the claim is no longer uncertain. It becomes a fixed judgment debt, and the law attaches interest to it without any further judicial intervention.
RAF’s argument fails
The RAF argued that because the claims originated as unliquidated damages, interest could only be awarded if a court expressly ordered it. Without such an order, the RAF maintained, no obligation to pay interest existed at all.
The court rejected this reasoning outright, drawing a clear and important distinction between pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest.
Judge Matojane explained that “once the court has quantified the claim and given judgment, the debt ceases to be unliquidated and becomes a judgment debt.”
This finding pulled the rug from under the RAF’s case. The absence of an express order cannot cancel a legal consequence that arises automatically by statute.
Silence does not remove liability
A key plank of the RAF’s defence was that the trial courts had not awarded interest, and that the issue could not be revisited on enforcement. The court dismissed this argument decisively.
Judge Matojane stated that “silence neither constitutes an adjudication of the interest claim nor implies that the court determined that no interest would accrue.”
This clarification is significant and emphasises that courts do not need to mention interest for it to apply, and claimants do not forfeit their entitlement simply because it was not written into the order.
The 14-day rule
The court confirmed that in RAF matters, interest does not begin running immediately after judgment. The Road Accident Fund Act provides a 14-day grace period before the obligation kicks in.
Judge Matojane explained that the law “defers, rather than extinguishes, the interest liability,” meaning the clock starts only after that 14-day window has closed.
Enforcement remains intact
The court also rejected the RAF’s attempt to impose additional procedural hurdles, including a requirement that affidavits be filed to calculate interest before writs of execution could be issued.
The court found that interest is straightforward to calculate based on the judgment amount, the statutory framework, and the applicable rate.
Judge Matojane noted that the calculation is “readily determinable by simple arithmetic,” reinforcing that no additional hurdles are required for enforcement.
Outcome
Both appeals were dismissed with costs. The Road Accident Fund was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
