Road Accident Fund v Sarah Wilson Lewis

Supreme Court of Appeal | Case no. 1209/2023 | [2025] ZASCA 174 | 18 November 2025

When the Road Accident Fund (RAF) admits liability and settles claims, can it change its mind years later simply because a new expert offers a different opinion? In this important judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered a firm answer: no. The decision reinforces that victims who reach a settlement with the RAF are entitled to rely on it.

Background

Ms Sarah Lewis lost her husband in a motor vehicle accident in November 2006. She instituted a claim against the RAF for, among other things, loss of support, general damages, and loss of earning capacity. Central to her claim was that she had suffered a serious psychiatric injury as a result of her husband’s death.

Over the course of the litigation, psychiatrists and psychologists appointed by both sides met and agreed, in joint minutes, that Ms Lewis’s psychiatric injury was caused by the accident. On the strength of that consensus, the RAF admitted liability for 100% of her proven damages and settled several of her claims.

Years later, after appointing a new psychiatrist based in the USA who took a different view, the RAF tried to reverse course. It sought to amend its plea to withdraw its admission and dispute that the accident had caused Ms Lewis’s psychiatric injury.

The court’s findings

The high court refused to allow the amendment, and after a long procedural road the matter reached the SCA for reconsideration. The SCA dismissed the RAF’s application on several grounds.

On procedure: The RAF had missed a mandatory filing deadline, tried to lodge its documents on the very last day outside office hours, and offered no proper explanation for the delay. The court described this as a textbook example of the kind of conduct that disqualifies a party from the indulgence it was seeking.

On the settlement: A settlement can only be set aside where both parties shared a genuine, material mistake about the facts. Here, at the time of settlement every expert on both sides confirmed the psychiatric injury. A later, differing opinion from a new expert does not retrospectively make the original agreement a mistake. As the court put it, a differing opinion by a new expert is not a new fact but merely a different interpretation of facts already known to both parties.

On good faith: The RAF’s own CEO had confirmed under oath that the new examination was to assess residual earning capacity, not to dispute causation. Its attempt to walk back a clear, deliberate admission at such a late stage smacked of a lack of good faith and would have seriously prejudiced Ms Lewis.

The application was dismissed with costs.

Why this case matters

This judgment offers real reassurance to accident victims and their families. It confirms that when the RAF admits liability and settles, that agreement is binding and cannot be undone simply because the Fund later regrets it or finds an expert willing to say something different. Finality in litigation protects the people who have already waited years for justice — in this case, nearly two decades.

For a copy of the full judgment click here.