Legal Battle Over RAF Compensation
A woman who spent her entire Road Accident Fund (RAF) settlement in less than a year has sued her lawyers. She claims they accepted a lower settlement than she was entitled to. Agnes Mokalapa argues that her attorneys breached their duty by advising her to accept the RAF’s offer. However, her lawyers maintain she insisted on taking the money immediately.
The RAF
The Road Accident Fund compensates victims of road accidents in South Africa. It covers medical costs, loss of income, funeral expenses, and serious injury claims. The fund operates on a no-fault basis, meaning victims receive compensation regardless of who caused the accident. It is financed through a fuel levy and aims to provide financial relief to those affected.
Court Hears Conflicting Accounts
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria heard arguments from both sides. Mokalapa’s lawyers claim she ignored their advice to seek further medical evaluations. They had planned to bring in expert witnesses to strengthen her case. Instead, she insisted on a quick payout. Her attorneys say she was eager to receive the money and told them, “I did not want to die before spending my money.”
Judge Annali Basson presided over the case. Mokalapa now contends that she was unaware the funds were meant to support her for life. She insists her attorneys did not explain the consequences of accepting the RAF’s offer. Her lawyers refute this, arguing she knowingly accepted a lower amount against their recommendations.
Settlement Amount Under Scrutiny
Mokalapa initially claimed more than R500,000 from the RAF. However, she accepted a settlement of R218,775.90. Her lawyers argued this was far less than she deserved, given her injuries. They advised her to undergo further assessments to justify a higher payout. She refused, choosing immediate compensation over prolonged legal proceedings.
The court heard that the RAF’s offer was based on only one medical report. Her legal team had arranged for additional experts to evaluate her injuries. However, she declined further examinations, prioritizing a swift payout.
Court Rejects Mokalapa’s Claims
Mokalapa insists her attorneys pressured her into signing the settlement. She claims they never informed her about the long-term financial implications. However, the court found her testimony inconsistent. When asked how she spent the money, she said she bought medicine and visited doctors. The RAF had, however, issued her a medical certificate for free healthcare.
Her attorneys testified that she was excited to receive the money and disregarded advice to wait for a better offer. The court ruled against Mokalapa, concluding she was aware of her choices. Her claim against her legal team was dismissed.
