Latest news with #R223
Eyewitness News
3 days ago
- Business
- Eyewitness News
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on 'chaotic' court cases
A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with over-inflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. In the week of 5 May, he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with over-inflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' LOSING BY DEFAULT 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment, not extended to any other litigant — in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on ‘chaotic' court cases, Gauteng judge says
The Road Accident Fund does not deal with its matters properly and does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications, resulting in 'default' judgments, said Judge Jan Pretorius. A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with overinflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. Read the judgment here. In the week of 5 May he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with overinflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said that 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' Losing by default 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment – not extended to any other litigant – in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. DM
IOL News
18-05-2025
- IOL News
Eastern Cape Education faces lawsuit from retired teacher over leave gratuity
A former teacher is suing Eastern Cape Education and MEC Fundile Gade for leave gratuity money that she was allegedly short-paid when she retired in 2020. Image: Bheki Radebe/African News Agency (ANA) A retired teacher is embroiled in a legal battle with the Eastern Cape Department of Education, claiming R198,608 in unpaid leave gratuity following her retirement in 2020. The former teacher, Thandile Mposelwa, is suing the department and MEC Fundile Gade for leave gratuity money that she was allegedly short-paid upon her retirement in 2020. She claimed that the department owed her R198,608.06 after receiving an amount of R25,369,25 from her leave credits of R223,978,23. However, the Deaprtment of Education in the Eastern Cape said the leave credits were audited and an amount of R46,782,57 became payable to her. Mposelwa has been working for the department since 1988. She was promoted as a principal at Thembalethu Junior Secondary School in 1992. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ In 2010, she was transferred to a deputy principal post at Sterkspruit Junior Secondary School, where she worked until her retirement in 2020. She argued that in terms of the policy, permanent and fixed-term contract employees were entitled to the cash value of any unused annual leave credits in respect of their annual leave cycle. Mposelwa, who was in her final year to complete a Bachelor of Arts Degree, said her study leave was approved from March 1, 1996, to December 31, 1996. Mposelwa stated that following her retirement, an amount of R25,369,65 was paid into her FNB account in January 2021 and this payment fell short of what she was entitled to receive in terms of the department's policy, especially for the days she accrued while she was still employed. She said the money did not correlate with the amount of R223,978,23, which is recorded as the money paid to her. 'Prior to July 1, 2000, employees in the public service were allowed to utilise their accumulated leave working backward if they had accumulated enough leave credits. This was the case when the plaintiff (Mposelwa) took study leave in 1996 to complete her studies,' read the court papers. Mposelwa said the amount paid was inconsistent with the calculation of her leave gratuity credits. The Zwelitsha Magistrate Court is expected to hand down a default judgment on May 23, 2025, after Mposelwa applied for an exception judgment last year. The basis of her exception application was that the department's plea was vague, embarrassing and lacked averments to sustain a defence. The department was granted leave to amend its plea within 15 days. Mposelwa's nephew, Bandile Magibili, said at the lapse of 15 days, the department decided to serve Mposelwa's legal representatives with a purported amended plea. He said when Mposelwa's representatives considered the plea, it was established that the department intended to file the same plea that was subject to the exception judgment. 'In other words, they wanted to file a replica of the plea that was set aside by the court. It is on this basis that the representatives objected to the purported amended plea by way of making an application for summary judgment,' he said. A summary judgment is a procedural mechanism that allows a court to decide a case without a full trial when there is no genuine dispute about the key facts. Essentially, it is a way to expedite a case when it is clear that the defendant has no viable defence. Magibili said the summary judgment application sat before the court on July 16, 2024, but could not proceed as the department served Mposelwa's lawyers with a defective answering affidavit. 'They served the representatives with a notice of filing and annexures to the affidavit, without the affidavit itself. The matter was therefore postponed to August 13, 2024, for the department to file a proper affidavit in court and serve the representatives with the same, in order for the matter to be argued on August 13, 2024 and the Department is now bringing an Application to file an amended Plea.' 'Through the advice of the representatives of the plaintiff we opposed this application and that it be heard on the same day as the summary judgment, August 13, 2024. Sadly, due to technical glitches in the recording devices at court, the matter could not proceed and was postponed to October 8, 2024. The basis for our inclination to oppose this application to amend is that the department is insisting that their purported amended plea is the same as the one that was set aside by the court in the exception judgment,' said Magibili. Asked for a comment, Eastern Cape Education spokesperson Mboxela Ceduma said the department can only talk on a judgment that would have been served to them, adding that: 'For now we wait for the court to announce its view.' In a letter issued to Mposelwa on September 18, 2024, the Eastern Cape education department said the human resources (HR) confirmed that the recalculation was done correctly at the time of the first court application and documentation to that effect was furnished. The department added that HR further confirmed that all moneys due to Mposelwa were paid to her.
