- The RAF sought to lower the damages award because the claimant had died before payment was made.
- The court ruled that compensation for lost income belongs to the deceased’s estate once it is awarded.
- The application to change the law and modify the order was dismissed, and the RAF had to cover the costs.
The High Court in the Eastern Cape has firmly rejected the effort by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to avoid paying the full damages award after a claimant’s death.
The court stated that once compensation is given, it belongs to the deceased’s estate, regardless of whether the payment has been made.
This case involved Chantel Liezel Lewis, who was injured in a car accident and won a court order for compensation for both past and future loss of income. Even though the order required payment within 14 days, the RAF did not pay. Lewis died four months later without receiving the money.
Instead of paying her estate, the RAF went to court to reduce its payment responsibility to only cover the loss before her death. It also asked the court to change the common law to allow for rescinding or modifying such orders in the future.
Background and parties
The RAF filed the application against Andile Gavin Mabheshwana, who was the executor of Lewis’s estate. The RAF argued that it should not have to pay for future loss of income that had not been earned at the time of her death.
It sought a massive decrease in the original award from over R4.8 million to just over R192,000, which it believed represented the loss suffered before Lewis’s passing.
The RAF based its argument on fairness and financial stability, claiming that paying full awards in these situations unjustly benefits heirs and affects its ability to support living claimants.
Court rejects attempt to change the law
Judge B Hartle dismissed the RAF’s arguments, stating they contradicted established legal principles regarding damages and final court orders.
Judge Hartle clarified that once a court determines damages, the decision is final. The judge noted, “Immediate certainty and finality are to be preferred to deferred precision.”
The court stressed the importance of the once-and-for-all rule, which requires that all damages, including future losses, be determined in one action and awarded as a total sum. This rule accepts that future predictions may not be accurate but prioritizes finality and efficiency.
Judge Hartle explained that this method may lead to cases where claimants are either overcompensated or undercompensated based on what happens after the judgment. The judge remarked, “No better system has yet been devised for assessing general damages for future losses.”
Estate entitled to compensation
A key finding was that once damages are awarded, they become part of the claimant’s estate. The fact that Lewis died before receiving payment did not alter her legal entitlement.
Judge Hartle dismissed the RAF’s argument that it does not exist to benefit heirs, stating that it effectively represents the wrongdoer. The judge remarked, “It is misleading to suggest that a wrongdoer would have no obligation to successful claimants or plaintiffs who die before compensation is paid.”
The court asserted that allowing the RAF to revisit final orders would endanger legal certainty and lead to endless court cases.
No basis to develop common law
The RAF referred to the Constitution to argue that the court should change common law in the interest of justice. However, the court found no reason to support such a change.
Judge Hartle criticised the way the application was presented, noting it raised complex policy issues better suited for the Legislature. The judge stated that judges should remember that law reform should primarily come from the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
The court also pointed out that similar attempts by the Fund had previously failed in other cases, confirming that the legal stance is settled.
Finality outweighs financial concerns
While recognising the fund’s financial difficulties, the court found that these concerns do not warrant changing well-established legal principles or revisiting final judgments.
Judge Hartle emphasised that allowing such changes would create uncertainty for claimants and might reward the RAF for delays in payment. The judge supported earlier rulings, cautioning that claimants would be left in “perpetual uncertainty” if orders could be altered after death.
In the end, the court concluded that the interests of justice favour certainty and finality over the fund’s financial concerns.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
