Judge gives fund an earful for wasting court time

THE Road Accident Fund got a tongue lashing from an acting judge for wasting the court’s time and public funds by often simply noting pleas which were “carbon copies” of the multiple other cases which it was defending and for not applying its mind to a specific case against it.

The fund was also criticised for persisting in defending a clear-cut matter until the day of trial, and only then conceding. If the fund had applied its mind from the start, it would have saved a lot in wasted legal fees, Acting Judge Brenda Neukircher said.

She made these remarks in a judgment in the Pretoria High Court where a woman from a rural area was run over when two cars collided near Butterworth.

Nonzinyana Fuliwe’s damages claim against the fund was clearcut and the fund had no witnesses to refute her allegations. Yet it persisted for more than a year in opposing the claim. The judge said it was “rather puzzling” why the fund did not concede earlier.

It was only on the day the matter came to court that the fund conceded the facts. However, it disputed some of the damages she claimed she had suffered and Fuliwe’s lawyers had to call two experts to testify, although counsel for the fund hardly had any questions for those witnesses. This caused the trial to run longer than necessary.

This further escalated the legal costs, which the public would pay by way of taxes.

Judge Neukircher said it was “glaringly obvious” that the “special pleas ”were “simply a carbon copy” of each fund matter she had heard that week. Also, the pleas were filed without any regard to documents at the disposal of the fund.